Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Crikey, is that what Land of my Fathers is really about?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Then again the other home nations have songs about saucepans, murder and direst threats.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:But surely on one level using something which was written and used in a very specific context as something completely different (and, let's be clear - it is basically a drinking song) is inherently racist. I'm not sure the participants ignorance of or denial of the truth really invalidates the idea that it is a racist use of someone else's heritage.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I don't see why it would be racist, unless there was a denial that it was originally a spiritual.
quote:It's certainly a drinking song this side of the pond - especially in rugby clubs. Regardless of the "approved" history that it was something to do with a school choir at Twickenham in the 1980s it does seem if you talk to enough ancient rugby players to have been part of the repertoire at least back to the 1950s (complete with obscene hand actions), if not earlier, along with John Peel and Dido Bendigo.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect, but can't prove, that the use of the song has more to do with Eric Clapton and UB40 than as a direct swipe as African Americans.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But surely on one level using something which was written and used in a very specific context as something completely different is inherently racist.
quote:For all I know, that could be happening right now somewhere in the world. The idea doesn't bother me.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I dunno Martin, I think it is a bit like using a Wilfred Owen poem as ironic lyrics to a car advert.
quote:Perhaps a better hypothetical example might be, say, Iranian football fans adopting Land Of Hope And Glory as their anthem.
which might be tough to imagine, I was just trying to think of something quintessentially British which might turn the stomach if used in this way
quote:certainly used to be (before my time really) - allegedly the move to Rosslyn Park is recapturing some of that.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
at the end of season Middlesex seven-a-side tournament. That is a true rugger bugger event.
quote:That's as maybe. The question is whether anyone else is bothered and whether we, as England rugby supporters, might want to be thinking about that when choosing which drinking songs to sing. I can imagine someone using a war poem in a brutish manner might cause offense. If it doesn't offend you, well meh.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For all I know, that could be happening right now somewhere in the world. The idea doesn't bother me.
quote:I don't think either of those really match up to the idea of using a slave spiritual as a rugby drinking song.
Perhaps a better hypothetical example might be, say, Iranian football fans adopting Land Of Hope And Glory as their anthem.
Or if you want a real-life alternative, how about someone taking the British national anthem and rewriting it as a hymn to America?
quote:Crikey, is that what Land of my Fathers is really about?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Then again the other home nations have songs about saucepans, murder and direst threats.
quote:Bloody south-eastern rugger halfwits. If you could get into the shed at Gloucester you were doing well - the idea that you'd have space to bbq is nuts.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Tales of people openly barbecuing *in* the old west stand are legion - basically (for the non-rugby following Shipmates), back in the days before 7s got all professional the Middlesex 7s was an end-of-season jolly for clubs from around England to travel up to HQ and have an all-day party while some rugby happened in the vicinity.*
quote:No, the other home nations. Sioni Sais means English Johnny remember.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Crikey, is that what Land of my Fathers is really about?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Then again the other home nations have songs about saucepans, murder and direst threats.
quote:No, Sosban Fach is the saucepan song, its about a housewife having a really bad day
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Crikey, is that what Land of my Fathers is really about?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Then again the other home nations have songs about saucepans, murder and direst threats.
quote:I think that's *a* question - but not *the* question. Largely because you can't tell a crowd what to sing. There is nothing more embarrassing than those dark corners of the sporting internet where fans of a particular side meet to talk - inevitably one of the younger, keener people will suggest "why don't we try singing this" and it never works. There's an element of sponteneity to it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
]That's as maybe. The question is whether anyone else is bothered and whether we, as England rugby supporters, might want to be thinking about that when choosing which drinking songs to sing.
quote:Probably the result of her husband coming home blind drunk, singing spiritual songs with obscene actions.
Originally posted by Kitten:
No, Sosban Fach is the saucepan song, its about a housewife having a really bad day
quote:Much as I like the Shed, Twickenham even in the 70s and 80s was just a wee bit bigger....
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bloody south-eastern rugger halfwits. If you could get into the shed at Gloucester you were doing well - the idea that you'd have space to bbq is nuts.
quote:Bath, Gloucester and Leicester have rather stronger claims of being the home of English rugby, particularly given the idiotic things that happen at Twickenham.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Much as I like the Shed, Twickenham even in the 70s and 80s was just a wee bit bigger....
quote:Sure, but I still thought you'd be in a position to help me out!
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:No, the other home nations. Sioni Sais means English Johnny remember.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Crikey, is that what Land of my Fathers is really about?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Then again the other home nations have songs about saucepans, murder and direst threats.
quote:Yes, and that is something to think about. But simply saying "oh, well I'm not offended" isn't really engaging with the discussion. It isn't about whether individually Marvin is offended but about a deeper understanding of the way we (as a crowd, as a community) are using other people's heritage.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I think that's *a* question - but not *the* question. Largely because you can't tell a crowd what to sing. There is nothing more embarrassing than those dark corners of the sporting internet where fans of a particular side meet to talk - inevitably one of the younger, keener people will suggest "why don't we try singing this" and it never works. There's an element of sponteneity to it.
quote:You don't need to tell me any of that, I'm not from the south east. Anyway, my lot are up there too if you define it in terms of players sent to the England side and periods unbeaten. We've never been fashionable, but since 1873 we've had periods of being very good indeed. Incidentally, I think we were the first side to play Leicester at Leicester when they were new to the sport!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Bath, Gloucester and Leicester have rather stronger claims of being the home of English rugby, particularly given the idiotic things that happen at Twickenham.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Much as I like the Shed, Twickenham even in the 70s and 80s was just a wee bit bigger....
quote:Sure, but where do you draw the line? Should we be burning all rock and pop records on the basis that they'd be nothing if "we" hadn't pinched the Blues (memorably described by Eric Idle in the Rutles as black music sung by white people)?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't about whether individually Marvin is offended but about a deeper understanding of the way we (as a crowd, as a community) are using other people's heritage.
quote:Generally speaking, architecture is hard to do something about.
Originally posted by rolyn:
We could ban the singing of Sweet Chariot from sporting venues, and whilst we are about it we could demolish all historical architecture in English towns and cities built off the profits from slavery.
quote:I went to a lot of rugby when I was a teenager and I never saw any racist incidents like this, but then to be fair a game at Gloucester had a far smaller crowd than at even a medium sized football game. At Gloucester the shed has a soft spot for picking on refs rather than players.
Didn't racism from the football terraces in Britain traditionally take the form of throwing items on the pitch and making a certain ridiculous and offensive chant? Not something that has ever happened at a rugby game to my knowledge.
quote:I genuninely believe that if there was a rugby drinking song which turned out to be hidden references to white nationalism then crowds would stop singing them - because rugby is a family sport and supporters (particularly at international games) are fairly sensible.
That isn't to say underlying institutional racism hasn't existed in clubs, it most probably did/does. Just as it used to exist in the Police Force until relatively recently.
There does seem to be a determined movement out there which seems to want to force Britain to face up to it's racist past.
quote:Hmm, I don't know. A whole style of music seems rather different to wholesale lifting of a song and using it for a different purpose to me.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Sure, but where do you draw the line? Should we be burning all rock and pop records on the basis that they'd be nothing if "we" hadn't pinched the Blues (memorably described by Eric Idle in the Rutles as black music sung by white people)?
quote:I'm not sure that's really true.
Surely the whole point of art is that the artist has no control over it once it's out there in the world? The item becomes a living, breathing thing and the property of the world to do with as they wish. Now, there's a question within that as to taste and decency, but not a prohibition.
quote:Well if that's true then it's a good job Bellowhead have packed it in then - they've recorded more than a few 18th/19th century protest/anti-slavery songs rocked up and fit for dancing. Usually played (loud) to audiences wanting to have a party.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure that's really true.
If someone makes a popular song then I don't know that they could really be offended if it is used in popular and even bawdy ways. If something is a protest song which developed as part of a movement and was written for a particular purpose, it might not be so hard to imagine people from that movement taking offense at it being used so loosely.
quote:The fun things about a lot of spirituals is that they were written so that they could be sung without the slave owners being aware that they were signing about slavery. I remember singing 'Steal Away' in school assembly when I was a child and only, a couple of decades later, finding out that the stealing away was intended as much to be literal as metaphorical. I wonder how many of the people who sing it at Rugby matches are aware of its broader implications?
Second, it was written (and/or popularised) in the 1860s as a spiritual and is often associated with slavery and is possibly even alluding to the underground railroad.
quote:Speakng as one from the west side of the pond, it doesn't seem necessarily racist to me. (Then again, I'm not African American.)
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:It's certainly a drinking song this side of the pond - especially in rugby clubs. Regardless of the "approved" history that it was something to do with a school choir at Twickenham in the 1980s it does seem if you talk to enough ancient rugby players to have been part of the repertoire at least back to the 1950s (complete with obscene hand actions), if not earlier, along with John Peel and Dido Bendigo.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect, but can't prove, that the use of the song has more to do with Eric Clapton and UB40 than as a direct swipe as African Americans.
quote:When I was in elementary school, we used to sing this along with other spirituals. I am somewhat offended by hearing it as a drinking song with obscene gestures--not because of cultural appropriation but because it is a religious song.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Speakng as one from the west side of the pond, it doesn't seem necessarily racist to me. (Then again, I'm not African American.)
But to many Americans familiar with the tradition, the idea of singing SLSC at a sporting event or as a drinking song, while not necessarily racist, defnitely seems bizarre.
quote:To be clear, the "obscene gestures"/drinking song stuff is very much rugby club behind closed doors - to the extent that it may possibly have long died out. I've not seen it for years anyway.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:When I was in elementary school, we used to sing this along with other spirituals. I am somewhat offended by hearing it as a drinking song with obscene gestures--not because of cultural appropriation but because it is a religious song.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Speakng as one from the west side of the pond, it doesn't seem necessarily racist to me. (Then again, I'm not African American.)
But to many Americans familiar with the tradition, the idea of singing SLSC at a sporting event or as a drinking song, while not necessarily racist, defnitely seems bizarre.
Moo
quote:The Welsh rugby fans also belt out "Guide me o thou great Jehovah". I expect both the Welsh and English teams need all the divine help they need.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:When I was in elementary school, we used to sing this along with other spirituals. I am somewhat offended by hearing it as a drinking song with obscene gestures--not because of cultural appropriation but because it is a religious song.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Speakng as one from the west side of the pond, it doesn't seem necessarily racist to me. (Then again, I'm not African American.)
But to many Americans familiar with the tradition, the idea of singing SLSC at a sporting event or as a drinking song, while not necessarily racist, defnitely seems bizarre.
Moo
quote:It was a well-established rugby song in the 1950s, even in the small towns of Scotland.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's certainly a drinking song this side of the pond - especially in rugby clubs. Regardless of the "approved" history that it was something to do with a school choir at Twickenham in the 1980s it does seem if you talk to enough ancient rugby players to have been part of the repertoire at least back to the 1950s (complete with obscene hand actions), if not earlier, along with John Peel and Dido Bendigo.
quote:This is what I find the most problematic too. (I'm not African American, but do have African ancestry.)
Originally posted by Moo:
I am somewhat offended by hearing it as a drinking song with obscene gestures--not because of cultural appropriation but because it is a religious song.
quote:You could have something there. Seven-a-side rugby originated in Melrose and it has a long history in the Border clubs. I'm not sure the gestures originated there though.
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:It was a well-established rugby song in the 1950s, even in the small towns of Scotland.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's certainly a drinking song this side of the pond - especially in rugby clubs. Regardless of the "approved" history that it was something to do with a school choir at Twickenham in the 1980s it does seem if you talk to enough ancient rugby players to have been part of the repertoire at least back to the 1950s (complete with obscene hand actions), if not earlier, along with John Peel and Dido Bendigo.
quote:Having spent time in the clubhouses at Melrose, Hawick, Langholme, etc I really wouldn't bet against it...
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:You could have something there. Seven-a-side rugby originated in Melrose and it has a long history in the Border clubs. I'm not sure the gestures originated there though.
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:It was a well-established rugby song in the 1950s, even in the small towns of Scotland.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's certainly a drinking song this side of the pond - especially in rugby clubs. Regardless of the "approved" history that it was something to do with a school choir at Twickenham in the 1980s it does seem if you talk to enough ancient rugby players to have been part of the repertoire at least back to the 1950s (complete with obscene hand actions), if not earlier, along with John Peel and Dido Bendigo.
quote:"Dulce et decorum est to drive the new 2017 Ford Explorer!"
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I dunno Martin, I think it is a bit like using a Wilfred Owen poem as ironic lyrics to a car advert.
quote:Or alternatively doing something unseemly to a poppy.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I dunno Martin, I think it is a bit like using a Wilfred Owen poem as ironic lyrics to a car advert.
quote:Well that's the official line but in a rugby context it long predates Chris Oti.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Furthermore, is not the rugby genesis of the verse normally associated with an international try scored by Chris Oti, an England player of Nigerian extraction?
quote:I really can't blame anyone for parodying the Battle Hymn, since it is just so damned user-friendly.
Glory glory Hallelujah,
Teacher hit me with a ruler!
Met her at the door with a loaded .44
And she ain't teachin' no more!
quote:Can we just take it as read for the purposes of this thread that I'm fully aware of the Apartheid angle, but England fans are not 1960s/70s Afrikaners and we could have a multipage thread on that by itself. Minus the rebel tours most other nations behaved reasonably well post the 70s (although I think the Kiwis played a series against them as late as 81....).
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
(he's literally the only person I could think of off the top of my head who's talked about racism in rugby - in the British isles anyway. I'm sure there were - sadly- others).
quote:Admirable restraint there Mr C! I can think of other words....
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
An idiotic English prop
quote:I'm old enough to believe that people go to watch rugby union to see a good game, not to see large men throwing around their handbags - and that crowds appreciate close games even when their team loses. Rugby union is tribal, but not that tribal.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Admirable restraint there Mr C! I can think of other words....
He is reasonably good at playing rugby though.
quote:Because the black slaves were oppressing the Hebrews? Aside from that, it is Christianity that Willis was using and he was likely Christian himself.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
........errr, didn't the African-American slaves (mis?)appropriately appropriate the image from Hebrew culture?
quote:What planet are you from? Because on this one, in this Britain, it still does. The difference is that there are efforts to change it, not that it has magically disappeared.
Originally posted by rolyn:
That isn't to say underlying institutional racism hasn't existed in clubs, it most probably did/does. Just as it used to exist in the Police Force until relatively recently.
quote:When it no longer has a racist present, its racist past will be less of an issue.
There does seem to be a determined movement out there which seems to want to force Britain to face up to it's racist past.
quote:Texts are syncretic by nature.
Originally posted by Basilica:
The idea that a text can have no history beyond its original composition is a remarkable one.
quote:No, culturally it had a deeper meaning when it was sung by black slaves. Now it has another meaning, it may have come from some boorish or possibly racist background, but now it is used as a tribal chant because everyone else has a tribal chant. Do I get upset about "The fields of Athenry"? No, but a Rangers fan might and I suppose I might in this context too, but from a different perspective than a Rangers fan.
So - should the song be dropped as a crowd soundtrack to Rugby Union games because of that association?
quote:Not really, otherwise there would be other racist songs, just like the Rangers/Celtic idea above they don`t just sing about the fields, they have a whole host of offensive songs to rile each other.
Is it possible that there is ingrained racism in English Rugby Union in that something sacred has been turned into a drinking song?
quote:I don't think anyone is saying this.
Originally posted by Basilica:
The idea that a text can have no history beyond its original composition is a remarkable one.
quote:Why? Maro is English of Nigerian descent. American Slave spirituals are not part of his culture. Black is a colour, not a single culture.
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
Perhaps we need Maro and a few others to give their opinions?
quote:When the EDL sing SLSC, Jerusalem, Rule Britannia, or whatever, they are singing a set of England-associated songs, and using those songs to broadcast their nasty racism.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When the EDL sing it, they are bastards for doing so.
quote:I think I agree with all of your post but I do object in general to the phrase 'cultural appropriation' because it sounds like it means a lot more.
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Cultural appropriation is a real issue, but it's an issue about hurting people. The key thing for me is "is this hurtful to the group this cultural artifact belongs to? Do they feel that something important is being stolen from them?"
quote:Culture is fluid, it always has been and likely always will be. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. However, dominant cultures have a habit of taking from those who they exploit whilst denigrating and/or them.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb]I do object in general to the phrase 'cultural appropriation' because it sounds like it means a lot more.
quote:Of course you are correct. I should have made myself clear. What I meant to say is that the Oti reference is when it first seems to have been used in an international context, which is the origin of the present pathetic controversy.
Well that's the official line but in a rugby context it long predates Chris Oti.
quote:Why would anyone care that they sing that?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There is a team in the Australian Football League called St Kilda, who are known as the Saints, and whose club song is the spiritual-based When The Saints Go Marching In.
I had never occurred to me (or anyone else, AFAIK) that they were guilty of "cultural appropriation", but now it is no doubt just a matter of time before some virtue-signaller decides to grab some attention and manufacture a grievance.
quote:If the problem is exploitation and denigration, then attack those things rather than other things that even you say aren't wrong in and of themselves.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Culture is fluid, it always has been and likely always will be. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. However, dominant cultures have a habit of taking from those who they exploit whilst denigrating and/or them.
quote:Why would anyone care that they sing SLSC? They're two songs from the same culture.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why would anyone care that they sing that?
quote:Singing a song is privilege?
Funny, though, how the advantaged seem to belittle any calling to attention of their privilege.
quote:Oh, such a happy statement. When the Saints Go Marching In was written by white people. It was made famous by a black man.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why would anyone care that they sing SLSC? They're two songs from the same culture.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why would anyone care that they sing that?
quote:So let me get this right, who, in your opinion, is entitled to get upset about an American spiritual song being used by white English people? Only late 19/early 20th C American Black people?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Why? Maro is English of Nigerian descent. American Slave spirituals are not part of his culture. Black is a colour, not a single culture. [/QB]
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
Perhaps we need Maro and a few others to give their opinions?
quote:Keep up with the times, comrade. The English rugby team has black people in it now, too.
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
So let me get this right, who, in your opinion, is entitled to get upset about an American spiritual song being used by white English people?
quote:I'm (unsurprisingly) abreast of the arguments, but it seems to me that when black British people are also considered to be part of this problem, the problem itself isn't really one to die in a ditch for.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Keep up with the times? Keep up with logic, reason, comprehension and a little cognitive effort.
quote:I'm not certain it is either. That is why I said
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I'm (unsurprisingly) abreast of the arguments, but it seems to me that when black British people are also considered to be part of this problem, the problem itself isn't really one to die in a ditch for.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Keep up with the times? Keep up with logic, reason, comprehension and a little cognitive effort.
quote:But I think you are missing my point. DonLogan2 said to ask a person who wouldn't understand why black Americans might find this offensive apparently because they are black. Not all black people share the same experiences or have the same culture. That people don't understand this is part of the problem.
I'm not certain
quote:Because whoever originally wrote it, and however it was originally sung, it has long been identified with black singers' and musicians' versions of it, particularly from New Orleans.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why would anyone care that they sing that?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Cultural appropriation!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When the Saints Go Marching In was written by white people. It was made famous by a black man.
quote:Though, the singing (at least during the game) is by the fans, not the players. So, the question is does "white English people" accurately reflect the people in the stands? From the crowd shots during games, I think it does quite well. And, of course, you can add relatively well off to the list of characteristics - by definition with enough money to buy tickets for an international rugby match (plus travel to get there).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Keep up with the times, comrade. The English rugby team has black people in it now, too.
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
So let me get this right, who, in your opinion, is entitled to get upset about an American spiritual song being used by white English people?
quote:It would be difficult to ban singing SLSC but it would be reasonable to ban the notorious actions, which are degrading and offensive on a number of levels.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Theoretically there is a case for forbidding English rugby supporters from singing SLSC, it will doubtless be seized upon by the 'political correctness gorne mad' brigade thus putting more fuel in the tank of the very politics PC abhors.
quote:I agree with Marvin's response to this.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Culture is fluid, it always has been and likely always will be. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself. However, dominant cultures have a habit of taking from those who they exploit whilst denigrating and/or them.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
[qb]I do object in general to the phrase 'cultural appropriation' because it sounds like it means a lot more.
quote:Presumably the black players have at at least one black parent and possibly black siblings who might attend international matches at spectators.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, the singing (at least during the game) is by the fans, not the players. So, the question is does "white English people" accurately reflect the people in the stands? From the crowd shots during games, I think it does quite well. And, of course, you can add relatively well off to the list of characteristics - by definition with enough money to buy tickets for an international rugby match (plus travel to get there).
quote:You have it a little backwards, at least for how things are in the States. "Oh When the Saints Go Marching In" is primarily identified with New Orleans, where jazz musicians—many but not all of whom are black—made it a jazz standard. It is not identified with African Americans specifically, much less with slavery, the same way that SLSC is. "Oh When the Saints" = New Orleans.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Because whoever originally wrote it, and however it was originally sung, it has long been identified with black singers' and musicians' versions of it, particularly from New Orleans.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why would anyone care that they sing that?
quote:It only "invites" a strawman because people do not wish to be called on their shit.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I read about a controversy a few months ago where a white male author was accused of 'cultural appropriation' for writing a book where the first-person narrator was a black woman. The substance of the complaint, in reality, wasn't that he had expressed the voice of a black woman but that he had done so ineptly - which is a crime against literature even before you get into identity politics - but describing the complaint in terms of 'cultural appropriation' leads to the obvious backlash of 'oh so you're saying no-one can ever create a viewpoint character that isn't of their own sex class and race?' One might reasonably respond that the backlash is based on a strawman, but the response to that is that one shouldn't use terms that invite such obvious strawmen.
quote:No, that's the reason why people accept the invitation.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It only "invites" a strawman because people do not wish to be called on their shit.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I read about a controversy a few months ago where a white male author was accused of 'cultural appropriation' for writing a book where the first-person narrator was a black woman. The substance of the complaint, in reality, wasn't that he had expressed the voice of a black woman but that he had done so ineptly - which is a crime against literature even before you get into identity politics - but describing the complaint in terms of 'cultural appropriation' leads to the obvious backlash of 'oh so you're saying no-one can ever create a viewpoint character that isn't of their own sex class and race?' One might reasonably respond that the backlash is based on a strawman, but the response to that is that one shouldn't use terms that invite such obvious strawmen.
quote:No. The strawman is that cultural appropriation means 'no-one can ever create a viewpoint character that isn't of their own class sex or race'. Which I thought was obvious from the part of my post that you quoted, but apparently not.
There is a massive and continuing history of white people representing black people without giving two shits about understanding the people of whom they are writing. It isn't a strawman.
quote:If one cannot point out that the attitudes are wrong, there is no hope of changing them. They will not do so by themselves. A young white man tried to tell me, and an older black woman, that racism did not exist any longer. We related our experiences with racism as the first step. He said he did not see racism happening, the second step is to try to educate him as to why. Privilege allows one to ignore what others cannot. Without calling attention to this, they have no reason to look further.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
And to be honest, I think the past few years have shown that the progressive tendency to call people on their actions, without doing anything to change the underlying attitudes that give rise to those actions, has not been terribly successful.
quote:I hadn't thought of Hillerman, that's an interesting example. I was more thinking of Alexander McCall Smith's books about Botswana.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Take Tony Hillerman. A white man writing about Navajo main characters in a Navajo setting. The Navajo, as a group, appear to have been accepting of him because he wrote respectfully and attempted to understand the characters and culture. He did not get everything correct, but his books were not bullshit based on stereotypes.
quote:This isn't a strawman. I've heard people actually say this (to white male writers) and mean it.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The strawman is that cultural appropriation means 'no-one can ever create a viewpoint character that isn't of their own class sex or race'.
quote:I don't think "an Englishman in Africa" was ever an accurate description of McCall Smith.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
<snip>I was more thinking of Alexander McCall Smith's books about Botswana.<snip>
McCall Smith was an Englishman in Africa for part of his career and yet seeks to speak "for" Botswana. That can't be anything other than bogus, however enjoyable his books are.
quote:I've not read Mcall Smith's books, so this isn't a direct comment on him. But if you think a Brit cannot live in a foreign country and still be not only be British, but also ignorant of the local culture, you are sadly mistaken.
Originally posted by BroJames:
He was born in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe where his Scottish father was a public prosecutor. His mother wrote, but was never published. He lived there for the first 18 or 19 years of his life.
quote:I don't think he is ignorant of the local culture and I have read and enjoyed his work. The problem isn't that he knows absolutely nothing, but that he clearly has limited knowledge which he has turned into a career - and almost by default has become for many "the voice" of Botswana and/or Africa.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I've not read Mcall Smith's books, so this isn't a direct comment on him. But if you think a Brit cannot live in a foreign country and still be not only be British, but also ignorant of the local culture, you are sadly mistaken.
quote:Who said anything about persecution of Christians?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, poor persecuted Christians.
quote:Fair enough - I was charitably assuming that most users of the phrase aren't so silly ...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:This isn't a strawman. I've heard people actually say this (to white male writers) and mean it.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The strawman is that cultural appropriation means 'no-one can ever create a viewpoint character that isn't of their own class sex or race'.
quote:What is it about a song that puts me on notice that it was written by a black person or a white one? Sure, there are musical styles that suggest one or the other, but I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to know whether my best guess is likely to be correct. Am I under an obligation to check the origins of a song before singing it? That seems absurd to me.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Oh, such a happy statement. When the Saints Go Marching In was written by white people. It was made famous by a black man.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why would anyone care that they sing SLSC? They're two songs from the same culture.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why would anyone care that they sing that?
quote:of course it sounds like nonsense to you, you are white. You have not seen your culture mined for profit whilst being denigrated simultaneously.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:What is it about a song that puts me on notice that it was written by a black person or a white one? Sure, there are musical styles that suggest one or the other, but I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to know whether my best guess is likely to be correct. Am I under an obligation to check the origins of a song before singing it? That seems absurd to me.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Oh, such a happy statement. When the Saints Go Marching In was written by white people. It was made famous by a black man.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why would anyone care that they sing SLSC? They're two songs from the same culture.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why would anyone care that they sing that?
I get that there's such a thing as taking the piss. I get that there's such a thing as blasphemy or profanity. I get that there's such a thing as crassness. I get that singing a song from another person's culture can (but need not be), crass, profane, piss-taking. That could certainly be offensive (though even then, I'm not sure that it would always be wrong. Racial caricatures aside, there is a legitimate place for parody).
But usually, a song is just a song. If it's not sung with malice, and there are no reasonable grounds for believing it to be sung with malice, saying that there are songs I shouldn't sing because I'm the wrong nationality or colour sounds like nonsense to me.
quote:Most Americans, of any colour, don't know what rugby is much less its British fan affectations.
Originally posted by Cod:
All of which is a long-winded way of saying: have any people of colour from the southern USA actually complained?
quote:I've read several of them. I have no knowledge of Botswana at all, but the books are obviously based on McCall Smith's fond impression of Botswana. As novels, they do well: the characters leap off the page.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was more thinking of Alexander McCall Smith's books about Botswana.
quote:Because white people only have one culture...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
you are white. You have not seen your culture mined for profit whilst being denigrated simultaneously.
quote:Fair cop. No, they don't and there are white cultures* that are denigrated by the majority. His statement, though, does not indicate that he is from any of those. Else he might understand a little better.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Because white people only have one culture...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
you are white. You have not seen your culture mined for profit whilst being denigrated simultaneously.
quote:What's the difference?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not making a statement about who can sing what, BTW. I happen to think sharing music can be a wonderful way to share culture. But that is the point, sharing not taking.
quote:OK, but if there's no clear answer, on what principles do you decide whether, and in what circumstances, I can (try to) sing "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot"?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not that there is always a clear line, there rarely is. what is appreciation and what is appropriation will rarely have a clear answer.
quote:No, it's probably a combination of market forces (until an artist is well known enough for the balance to tip, what the populariser/distributor of a work does simply is more commercially valuable than what the originator does), exploitation (people without commercial clout being screwed over by people who have it), intentional racism (not wanting to listen to or perform with black people), and systematic racism (it being harder, in a white, racist, society, to encounter and learn to appreciate music created by blacks until it starts to be noticed by enterprising whites).
It remains though, that until hip hop, white people made considerably more money from black music than did black people.
That is hardly sharing.
quote:Thing is, I do not believe being white precludes you from gaining some inkling. There were, and are, white people in every civil rights movement. What do they see what you do not? I cannot answer this for you, Eliab. Privilege is the fact that you do not need to do so.
Originally posted by Eliab:
You've suggested (and I fully accept) that as a white person I don't have the same perspective as someone whose culture has been treated badly. That's right.
quote:Again, it is your privilege speaking. But it does amaze me. You write as if you are educated, which would imply at least a smattering of history. You are not, by your profile, incredibly old. This should translate to at least a modicum of understanding.
As a result, there is absolutely nothing cultural that I feel possessive about. I can't imagine ever objecting to anyone else enjoying 'my' culture on the grounds that they are the wrong nationality or race.
quote:Start here.
If you don't agree that the rule is unnecessary and think that I ought to follow it, you need to be able to explain clearly to someone who not only does not, but really cannot, see things the way you do, what the rule actually is.
quote:Elvis Presley was an unknown when he started singing black music. As was Pat Boone and numerous others. Whilst some began singing because they liked the music, many were signed to contract to avoid using the originators. "Race Music" as it was called, was black music for black folk. When white people began to listen in sufficient numbers, white record companies hired white musicians to avoid hiring black.(I am not a music historian, But I am a fan or early American blues.)
No, it's probably a combination of market forces (until an artist is well known enough for the balance to tip, what the populariser/distributor of a work does simply is more commercially valuable than what the originator does), exploitation (people without commercial clout being screwed over by people who have it),
quote:This will likely be somewhat true. However, as I mentioned, the music started becoming popular sung by black folks first.
intentional racism (not wanting to listen to or perform with black people),
quote:Cultural appropriation is an issue largely because of the wider injustices.
Some of that is blameworthy directly, some is the consequence of other wider injustices. Does the concept of cultural appropriation, widen the category of what would we ought to consider exploitative and unjust?
quote:Hear, hear!
Originally posted by Cod:
There's a point missing here, which perhaps someone could clear up easily. What makes something cultural misappropriation is its use without caring about what the group it most clearly belongs to thinks. ...
quote:Hence my engagement with you on this thread - which I hope is enquiring rather than argumentative.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thing is, I do not believe being white precludes you from gaining some inkling.
quote:No one one this thread is making a massive deal about Swing Low Sweet Chariot. Even the OP is not. As far as the copyright, that was mention tangentially to discuss moral rights of the author. In this case, the author was a slave an he is dead. His master is dead and I do not think copyright laws of the time would transfer his ownership to present day. INAL.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Hear, hear!
Originally posted by Cod:
There's a point missing here, which perhaps someone could clear up easily. What makes something cultural misappropriation is its use without caring about what the group it most clearly belongs to thinks. ...
Whose song is this?
quote:The attitudes of Indians in general and Hindus in particular toward the bindi/tilak vary enormously.
Originally posted by Eliab:
The blog writer you link to, for instance, considers that her choice to wear a bindi "proudly" as a sign of her Indian heritage is legitimate, even though she does not claim to have any religious belief in the ideas that it symbolises, but thinks that another person using the same form of expression for mere adornment is being "horribly disrespectful".
quote:Polemical exploitation of someone's alleged "privilege" in a context such as this is an attempt at emotional blackmail, and a bluff which must always be called.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Privilege is the fact that you do not need to do so.
quote:Not exactly, not on my part. Again, culture is fluid and there will cross-cultural influence.
Originally posted by Eliab:
But unless I'm badly misunderstanding the points, you, and the blog writer, want to take it further than that, and have a category of "appropriation" which isn't scornful, and isn't a stereotype, and yet means that a person perceived to belong to one culture shouldn't express themselves in a way associated with another culture.
quote:Benny Goodman played black music. Literally. He purchased music from Fletcher Henderson without whom Goodman might not be the seminal figure he is. He also integrated his band, something not generally done at that time.
You both also allow that there is a category of respectful sharing of cultures, which is superficially similar (to me, indistinguishable) but which you think is unobjectionable. It's that area, and that area only, which calls for explanation.
quote:Why? Again, I'm not planting my flag on the use of SLSC, but I get the reason some people might not be col with it.
Further, it seems to me that there are different sorts of 'respectfulness'. What is appropriate at a rugby match might not be appropriate at a religious service, but that doesn't make it fair to categorise behaviour in a relatively uninhibited setting as being disrespectful.
quote:Of course. And it is inconsistent.
And views about what is respectful can differ.
quote:Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. People in a dominant position can ignore things others cannot. Without referencing this, how can it be remedied?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Polemical exploitation of someone's alleged "privilege" in a context such as this is an attempt at emotional blackmail, and a bluff which must always be called.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Privilege is the fact that you do not need to do so.
quote:MY white culture (poor working class) is constantly denigrated by the majority white and non white cultures alike. Ever heard of "chav?" [In America "Trailer Park" comes close]
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Fair cop. No, they don't and there are white cultures* that are denigrated by the majority. His statement, though, does not indicate that he is from any of those. Else he might understand a little better.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Because white people only have one culture...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
you are white. You have not seen your culture mined for profit whilst being denigrated simultaneously.
*That is to say, cultures which are majority, and/or dominated by, people of prominent pallor.
quote:The English don't have songs of their own? If the Americans will forgive me for a bit of cultural appropriation: WTF??
Dudley Wood, the former secretary of the Rugby Football Union, was quoted in The Independent in 1991 as saying that Oti “was totally mobbed on the way to the dressing room. It’s a delicate situation in a way, in that it’s a Negro spiritual. But we poor English don’t really have the songs to sing.”
quote:Where is the injustice or oppression in English rugby fans singing SLSC? If it was never heard in that context again, what else would change? The injustices of the past would still have happened. Elvis and Pat Boone would still have made millions out of black music.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is the very problem, as soon as an injustice is mention, someone begins to whinge that they are being oppressed by their oppression being mentioned.
quote:I'm not going to deny this happens. A lot.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is the very problem, as soon as an injustice is mention, someone begins to whinge that they are being oppressed by their oppression being mentioned.
quote:What's even more interesting, is that really crowds at rugby matches in England don't sing... Which is why efforts to replace it with another song are probably doomed to failure. When I watch England someone will strike up Swing Low, and everyone joins in - otherwise there's nothing.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another thing I was reflecting is how odd it is for English rugby fans to look to American slave song for bawdiness* - given that so much of their own folk music tradition is bawdy and rough.
*irrationally in many ways. SLSC is not a bawdy song, folk songs like Liverpool Judies clearly are. Why sing a random song to be bawdy? Are our own songs about prostitutes not bawdy enough?
quote:I think it is about having a limited singing vocabulary, because of the link to bawdy club rugby songs and the semi-official championing of SLSC.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
When I watch Moseley we occasionally chant the name - so do Bris and Glaws fans. But it isn't football, there are no other songs. So, what has SLSC got that made it escape from the clubhouse and onto the figurative terraces?
Because nothing else has in English rugby.
quote:Nobody enjoys being told they are wrong, no matter what it is. The worse it makes them look, the more so. Not sure how to fix this. Ignoring the problem doesn't work.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What also happens is that people accused of oppression don't like the 'gotcha' involved in defending their actions.
quote:I understand and generally attempt to be less strident.¹ᵇ I did use whinge with KC because he is one of the posters who has a history of downplaying this subject.
If the only permissible response (in the eyes of the accusers) is utter obeisance, anything else is seen as 'whinging' or denial or doubling-down.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Go back and read the thread. Strike that, just this page of it, as slowly as you need to. And then, if you still think this question necessary, I'll answer it in as simple terms as I can.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Where is the injustice or oppression in English rugby fans singing SLSC?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is the very problem, as soon as an injustice is mention, someone begins to whinge that they are being oppressed by their oppression being mentioned.
quote:First, see above. Beyond this, a few people might actually start being aware of what they do? Might actually begin to connect with people different to them a bit better?
If it was never heard in that context again, what else would change?
quote:It is the injustices of today that concern me more. Those are, whatchacallem, examples, meant to illustrate a concept, not... oh bugger...if you don't understand that already, I'm not certain I can break it down to a simple enough explanation.
The injustices of the past would still have happened. Elvis and Pat Boone would still have made millions out of black music.
quote:Not only bullshit, but head-swimmingly bizarre.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. People in a dominant position can ignore things others cannot.
quote:The problem with "remedying" the situation by invoking "cultural appropriation", is that the "cultural appropriation" racket is completely arbitrary, and in fact consists of randomly selected grievances about which self-styled advocates can adopt a smarmy, unctuous self-righteousness toward those who refuse to go along with them and toe the party line.
Without referencing this, how can it be remedied?
quote:More bullshit.
This is the very problem, as soon as an injustice is mention, someone begins to whinge that they are being oppressed by their oppression being mentioned.
quote:Morality is to do with general rules about how one human being should treat another.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cultural appropriation is an issue largely because of the wider injustices.
quote:If I greet the guy in the next office with "morning, shortarse" when I see him in the morning, it's not immoral. We have an ongoing series of jokes about his height (he's rather taller than the average, and useful for removing things from high shelves and locating doorways in the dark.)
Originally posted by Russ:
If you imply that as far as you're concerned the French can do what they like with Rule Britannia because the Brits aren't Victims, you undermine the case that there's a moral rule here...
quote:In which case there is no such thing.
Originally posted by Russ:
Morality is to do with general rules about how one human being should treat another.
quote:How is it silly? Ask a group of Aboriginal Australians if they think it is silly.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Talk about dominance is just as silly as talk about privilege.
quote:It would make this easier if you read for comprehension. Being part of the dominant culture doesn't mean one will think or speak in a certain way, it does mean that they can, willingly or through ignorance, ignore or not experience that which others must.
"You only say that because you're male/female, tall/short, black/white, French/Egyptian/Japanese, Buddhist/Hindu".
quote:It isn't completely arbitrary. It has soft lines and there will be disagreement even by those who care to see equity, but this doesn't mean it is arbitrary.
The problem with "remedying" the situation by invoking "cultural appropriation", is that the "cultural appropriation" racket is completely arbitrary,
quote:Self-interested twaddle to vacate a reasonable discussion.
and in fact consists of randomly selected grievances about which self-styled advocates can adopt a smarmy, unctuous self-righteousness toward those who refuse to go along with them and toe the party line.
quote:The ridiculous argument that if one doesn't complain about al injustices equally, none are worthy of addressing.
Where is the outrage over globally ubiquitous Irish pubs which "culturally appropriate" music which originated in Irish resistance to British oppression?
quote:Your argument is an idiot. Past injustice was brought up as an example to help understand the issue.
The real issues which you are evading is that it is illegitimate to derail a rational discussion by bringing up injustices from the past, and that (apropos of which) just about anyone can play that game, because just about everyone has ancestors who suffered at the hands of someone else.
quote:All I get from this thread is an attitude of "this is ours, and you can't have it". An attitude which, when white people display it, is rightly seen as a bad thing.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Go back and read the thread. Strike that, just this page of it, as slowly as you need to. And then, if you still think this question necessary, I'll answer it in as simple terms as I can.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Where is the injustice or oppression in English rugby fans singing SLSC?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is the very problem, as soon as an injustice is mention, someone begins to whinge that they are being oppressed by their oppression being mentioned.
quote:You think that banning SLSC would cause English rugby fans to increase their appreciation of the cultural history of black Americans?
quote:First, see above. Beyond this, a few people might actually start being aware of what they do? Might actually begin to connect with people different to them a bit better?
If it was never heard in that context again, what else would change?
quote:If you're more concerned with the injustices of today, then use them as your examples. Don't blame me for responding to the things you actually post rather than the things you don't.
quote:It is the injustices of today that concern me more. Those are, whatchacallem, examples, meant to illustrate a concept, not... oh bugger...if you don't understand that already, I'm not certain I can break it down to a simple enough explanation.
The injustices of the past would still have happened. Elvis and Pat Boone would still have made millions out of black music.
quote:What is silly is misusing terms such as dominance to stifle open discussion.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ask a group of Aboriginal Australians if they think it is silly.
quote:No one on this thread has said this.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
All I get from this thread is an attitude of "this is ours, and you can't have it".
quote:Who on this thread has said it should be banned? We are discussing the appropriateness of its use.
You think that banning SLSC would cause English rugby fans to increase their appreciation of the cultural history of black Americans?
quote:Your posts indicate no understanding of how examples work. The past serves as a clearer example, the US in particular, because there was an open acceptance of differential treatment. It is a common discussion form to use simpler, clearer examples to illustrate a concept before one then discusses the less clear.
If you're more concerned with the injustices of today, then use them as your examples. Don't blame me for responding to the things you actually post rather than the things you don't.
quote:I specifically stated that I am not saying this. I specifically told Eliab that his colour does not prohibit him from understanding what I am saying, So you appear to be ignoring what is said in favour of stifling conversation.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
"You're only saying that because you're white", or "People of your ethnicity/national identity/religion/language once mistreated people of my ethnicity etc, and therefore you can never make any negative reference to any of us under any circumstances".
quote:I agree, but I suspect the direction in which our fingers are pointing are opposite.
This needs to be called out for the irrational and dishonest bullshit that it is.
quote:Ware matches next to this statement.
It is as idiotic as saying that the Crusades and later Western colonial exploitation of the Middle East disqualify any Westerner from criticising ISIS.
quote:Speaking as the person at whom it was directed, I didn't see the use of "privilege" as emotional blackmail. I thought it was entirely appropriate.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Polemical exploitation of someone's alleged "privilege" in a context such as this is an attempt at emotional blackmail, and a bluff which must always be called.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Privilege is the fact that you do not need to do so.
quote:What I mean is, standards of formality differ according to context, and you therefore can't judge someone's respectfulness without reference to context. Cultural questions aside, it would be disrespectful to make the "coming" gesture to SLSC if, for example, it were being sung at a funeral. It doesn't follow that doing the same at a sporting event is equally disrespectful.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Why? Again, I'm not planting my flag on the use of SLSC, but I get the reason some people might not be col with it.
Further, it seems to me that there are different sorts of 'respectfulness'. What is appropriate at a rugby match might not be appropriate at a religious service, but that doesn't make it fair to categorise behaviour in a relatively uninhibited setting as being disrespectful.
quote:This is undoubtedly true. But it seems unfair that "the borrowers" can mean "white people" generally, when the white people doing the borrowing aren't the same white people that did the unfairness. If I (to use an example which is very likely to happen) use costume inspired by another culture at a LARP event, and people of my nationality have behaved shittily towards that culture (I'm English - people of my nationality have been shitty to more or less everyone) is it reasonable to infer into my behaviour a racism for which no objective grounds exist?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
People will care much less about who references their culture when they are treated fairly by the borrowers.
quote:This is true and part of the reason a clear line of demarcation is difficult.
Originally posted by Eliab:
It doesn't follow from that truth, that the people objecting to cultural appropriation are objectively right - it could be that 'privilege' makes me blind to a moral truth, but it could equally well be that one of the pernicious effects of racism is to make people see the threat of oppression in actions which are in themselves innocent.
quote:Bert from Mary Poppins?
And, to be even handed, the discussion can also only progress if people on lilBuddha's side of the argument realise that there is genuinely nothing in our experience analogous to 'cultural appropriation' which we can see as at all offensive, and that ordinary do-as-you-would-be-done-by human decency may not be enough to bridge the gap of understanding.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I do understand this.
What I mean is, standards of formality differ according to context, and you therefore can't judge someone's respectfulness without reference to context.
quote:Masturbating to a song that someone else buried their gran to might feel like a bit more than irreverence. Yeah, British lads might not be aware of this, but that ignorance is part of the objection.
So saying that 'respectful' borrowing is permitted is fine, provided that light, irreverent and even bawdy treatment is not necessarily going to be taken as evidence that the cultural expression being borrowed is being treated with contempt. There are social situations were irreverence is not disrespect.
quote:But they are. Not only because of the current racism and injustices, but because what Britain now is a direct connection to what Britain was. And whilst SLSC is an American thing, the conditions of its inception are not unique to them. In Britain, it is easier to feel divorced from that past.
But it seems unfair that "the borrowers" can mean "white people" generally, when the white people doing the borrowing aren't the same white people that did the unfairness.
quote:Racism isn't only active hate. It is treating other peoples with no respect for what they feel. If other people's religion, heritage and culture are no more than a costume for you, it is not quite on.
If I (to use an example which is very likely to happen) use costume inspired by another culture at a LARP event, and people of my nationality have behaved shittily towards that culture (I'm English - people of my nationality have been shitty to more or less everyone) is it reasonable to infer into my behaviour a racism for which no objective grounds exist?
quote:Actually, I linked earlier to an article that featured two American black academics reactions.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I repeat a point I've already made, one which nobody seems to have answered properly. One can't complain about somebody misappropriating part of your culture unless you have a title to claim it's yours. None of those who have been arguing that the English Rugby Team has improperly misappropriated Swing Low Sweet Chariot have deigned to demonstrate on what basis they have a claim that it's theirs, yet alone whether they object.
quote:Ahh thank you. Presumably on that basis - and in the interests of restoration and consistency - I can now expect the US Government to return the Great Plains, New York, Chicago and other territory to the Native Tribes? Perhaps it might be a good idea to address one's own racist issues (reaction to Obamacare anyone) before presuming to try and sort out others' (admitted) concerns.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not only because of the current racism and injustices, but because what Britain now is a direct connection to what Britain was. .
quote:How about sticking to the subject? Singing a slave song in an England Rugby match has nothing whatsoever to do with historic wrongs to Native Americans.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Ahh thank you. Presumably on that basis - and in the interests of restoration and consistency - I can now expect the US Government to return the Great Plains, New York, Chicago and other territory to the Native Tribes? Perhaps it might be a good idea to address one's own racist issues (reaction to Obamacare anyone) before presuming to try and sort out others' (admitted) concerns.
quote:You did, and I read carefully their disappointed, mostly baffled, reactions.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, I linked earlier to an article that featured two American black academics reactions.
quote:I don't think racism is particularly endemic in rugby union, but sexism very much is.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You did, and I read carefully their disappointed, mostly baffled, reactions.
But being baffled by a foreign culture's use of one's own isn't an uncommon event. It's done mainly out of ignorance of any wider significance, and importantly, no harm is meant by it, even though the originating culture may feel bemused, uncomfortable and possibly aggrieved.
I do understand. But I also understand that there are both bigger fish to fry and that trying to educate English rugby fans is going to take a very long time, when the actual problem is that racism in rugby is deep and endemic. And that sexism in rugby - the actions to the song, anyone? - is also a huge problem.
quote:The problem I have with it is that to use historical examples as you do is to ignore the many steps that have been taken since then to rectify the situation. Race relations are far from perfect now, but they are better than they were in the 1950s - and a massive amount better than they were in the 1850s - so to argue about a contemporary issue as if nothing had changed since then seems unfair to say the least.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Your posts indicate no understanding of how examples work. The past serves as a clearer example, the US in particular, because there was an open acceptance of differential treatment.
If you're more concerned with the injustices of today, then use them as your examples. Don't blame me for responding to the things you actually post rather than the things you don't.
quote:Actually, I think the problem is that racism is pervasive and subtle, but in Britain as a whole, rather than just rugby. And unconscious as well. It can be hard to communicate because of those factors, which is why I use America as an example. Because of their history, and perhaps because of the difference in their general culture, racism is bolder, more clear there. Setting aside the obvious idiots of Ukip, BNP and the like, of course.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But I also understand that there are both bigger fish to fry and that trying to educate English rugby fans is going to take a very long time, when the actual problem is that racism in rugby is deep and endemic.
quote:Obviously, but not the subject of this thread. Yet. But if wish to discuss sexism, and frankly the barely post-pubescent behaviour in sport, I'm your huckleberry.
And that sexism in rugby - the actions to the song, anyone? - is also a huge problem.
quote:Never said that things hadn't improved. I write the words, you read the words, but your replies do not indicate you understand how the words work together.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
so to argue about a contemporary issue as if nothing had changed since then seems unfair to say the least.
quote:Not in as many words perhaps, but by constantly focusing on the injustices of the past you sure do give that impression.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Never said that things hadn't improved.
quote:Though this equally relies on a comparison to the past that you wish to exclude when it works against you (i.e. that past injustices were much worse than present injustices).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
so to argue about a contemporary issue as if nothing had changed since then seems unfair to say the least.
quote:Yes, certainly, that rugby - almost any sport - will reflect the society from which it draws its talent. And rugby has, if anything, a class divide.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]Actually, I think the problem is that racism is pervasive and subtle, but in Britain as a whole, rather than just rugby.
quote:It is, however, possible to have some personal appreciation of "cultural appropriation" or worse, but still make a decision to support the liberal, pluralist principle of freedom of expression even when it hurts you, or people like you.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I haven't had the experience that makes ordinary people of good-will sensitive to 'cultural appropriation'.
quote:Clap........Clap.........Clap.........Clap
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Christians in the West face a day to day experience of their symbols, music, dress, buildings. theological concepts, etc. being constantly trashed, misused, bastardised, syncretised and misrepresented.
quote:Again, happens to all religious groups, why is it so much more terrible when it happens to Christians?
This is not the same as persecution, but very real persecution (sometimes involving violence, destruction of buildings, abduction, rape, murder) occurs in other parts of the world, and many Christians know fellow-believers who have escaped such situations, or have themselves lived and worked in countries where these things happen.
quote:
They can therefore understand why some of their fellow-Christians find the endemic disrespect in the West sinister, and fear it is the thin edge of the wedge which might end in actual persecution, BUT still draw the line at trying to manipulate critics of Christianity and stifle debate, with an attitude of: "You can't understand what it's like to be us, and what some of us have gone through, so you have no right to attack us in any way, and you must take very seriously our distress over anti-Christian material".
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Oh, wait, you're serious. First, some Christians whinge like mad about how persecuted they are in their own countries. War on Christmas, anyone. Second, non-Christians have faced actual persecution in those same countries and still are still othered in these countries which are also ours. Though you wouldn't know it by some people.quote:Only when it is white people in white-majority countries who are supporting the principle of freedom of expression. For instance, non-Aboriginals must always have the right to criticise Aboriginals. However, when minority groups criticise the white people it is
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is, however, possible to have some personal appreciation of "cultural appropriation" or worse, but still make a decision to support the liberal, pluralist principle of freedom of expression even when it hurts you, or people like you.
quote:I think you are misunderstanding. I'm not saying it is OK to mock Christianity. I am saying that they are not uniquely mocked in the west, but that all religions suffer this. I am refuting his claim that they nobly suffer in silence and am making the point that the effect of mocking Christians in western countries is much less than other groups suffer. I'm not saying that makes it OK.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry, lB, you're engaging in whataboutery.
If you think cultural appropriation is a thing that people shouldn't do, Christian symbols - the cross, and specifically the crucifix - shouldn't be appropriated either.
Back when it suddenly became the fashion for a season (I blame Madonna), huge, blingy crucifixes were everywhere. Pretty certain that fell under the cultural appropriation criteria, and you're now mocking Kaplan for feeling uncomfortable with it.
quote:This is a deliberate or inadvertent misrepresentation.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Only when it is white people in white-majority countries who are supporting the principle of freedom of expression. For instance, non-Aboriginals must always have the right to criticise Aboriginals. However, when minority groups criticise the white people it is
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is, however, possible to have some personal appreciation of "cultural appropriation" or worse, but still make a decision to support the liberal, pluralist principle of freedom of expression even when it hurts you, or people like you.
"an attempt at emotional blackmail, and a bluff which must always be called", "needs to be called out for the irrational and dishonest bullshit that it is", and "completely unacceptable".
quote:Who said that?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
why is it so much more terrible when it happens to Christians?
quote:If you don't know about situations such as that of Coptic Christians in Egypt, then your ignorance prevents anything you say on a topic such as this from being taken seriously.
some Christians whinge like mad about how persecuted they are in their own countries. War on Christmas, anyone.
quote:No, Christians in the West do not suffer what Jews have suffered and do suffer.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm sure this happens to Christians as well.
quote:What happens to Coptic Christians in Egypt is bad and wrong. But it has naught to do with this thread. Your post is irrelevant unless you are using it as a tactic to ignore other injustices.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:If you don't know about situations such as that of Coptic Christians in Egypt, then your ignorance prevents anything you say on a topic such as this from being taken seriously.
some Christians whinge like mad about how persecuted they are in their own countries. War on Christmas, anyone.
If you do know, but choose to trivialise it ("whinge"), the you are an arsehole.
quote:No one is saying this. Criticisms aren't the subject of the OP. But if one really wishes to critique anything, a knowledge of the subject is a good idea.
Nobody has the right to claim special sensitivities (religious, ethnic, whatever) which preclude any criticism of them, on the grounds that their critics cannot understand their feelings.
quote:If you're concerned about not being misrepresented yourself you might wish to not misrepresent other people. This is not about people's sensitivities or feelings. But even if it were, people would have the right to claim anything they like.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This is a deliberate or inadvertent misrepresentation.
Nobody has the right to claim special sensitivities (religious, ethnic, whatever) which preclude any criticism of them, on the grounds that their critics cannot understand their feelings.
quote:You allow a team to be called that without demur?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm happy with the way one local Baseball team The Spokane Indians has dealt with the issue; http://www.milb.com/content/page.jsp?ymd=20100224&content_id=8130724&sid=t486&vkey=team4
The team has worked to help promote the local language to keep it from going extinct.
quote:Doc Tor, you'll need to explain that one. If the expression "Strange Fruit" has resonances, they are lost on me. Is it a euphemism for something where you live, like 'swinging both ways'?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It did occur to me that there'd be a tsunami of righteous anger directed at say Del Monte if they used "Strange Fruit" in an advert ...
quote:It's a famous song about lynching by Bilie Holiday. Link to vid on youtube.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Doc Tor, you'll need to explain that one. If the expression "Strange Fruit" has resonances, they are lost on me. Is it a euphemism for something where you live, like 'swinging both ways'?
quote:Seems like a good summary of what actually happened.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is entirely possible that SLSC became popularised within British culture and church as a result of choirs visiting the UK. It is possible that it then had a "respectable" second life as a gospel song, which was then ironically subverted by the hard-drinking rugby crowd and then subsequently had a third life as an official-unofficial anthem of the English rugby team.
quote:You must realise that's shit, Russ, with a moments reflection. If all idea are just existing in the mind, capable of being reinterpreted by different people in different ways, then there would be no shared understanding of something that is racist, sexist, homophobic etc.
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm trying to get my head around the idea that meanings exist in the mind. That mind imposes meaning on matter, communicates meaning to other minds, and that meanings evolve as information is passed from mind to mind, and as different minds encounter the same information in different contexts.
So I reject the idea that SLSC has only one meaning.
quote:In what world is it cultural appropriation to have a significant proportion of the British public represented in the actor playing a British secret agent?
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Could a white British person argue that, say, for a black British actor to play the fictional character James Bond in a film is cultural appropriation? Or are objections to a black Bond racist?
quote:I suppose it's a question of whether there is such a thing as white British culture. And I don't know.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:In what world is it cultural appropriation to have a significant proportion of the British public represented in the actor playing a British secret agent?
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Could a white British person argue that, say, for a black British actor to play the fictional character James Bond in a film is cultural appropriation? Or are objections to a black Bond racist?
quote:I think you'd have to acknowledge that it was an innovation, on a par with a female Doctor Who.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Could a white British person argue that, say, for a black British actor to play the fictional character James Bond in a film is cultural appropriation? Or are objections to a black Bond racist?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
.
quote:True - I think Bond's far enough past the books now that there's no reason why he shouldn't be black, Chinese, anything (so long as still British). I think he probably should continue to be a he though - unlike Dr Who who presumably could regenerate as a woman (no problem with that). In the spirit of Fleming's books Bond probably should be a man.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I think you'd have to acknowledge that it was an innovation, on a par with a female Doctor Who.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Could a white British person argue that, say, for a black British actor to play the fictional character James Bond in a film is cultural appropriation? Or are objections to a black Bond racist?
But I don't think it'd be cultural appropriation whoever played the role, just as long as the role was quintessentially British. Black (and Asian and Chinese and Middle Eastern) people can be British. And given that Bond would be about 90 by now, the idea that you can't make him black because that wouldn't be factually accurate is a bit
quote:What is there about any part of British culture that requires one to be white? Yes, there are subcultures that have been predominantly white, but in what part of those is white necessary?
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I suppose it's a question of whether there is such a thing as white British culture. And I don't know.
quote:You are British. Seriously, go to America. (You will blow their damn minds.) Your Britishness will be the dominant element. Though, given the British acting invasion of America, this is becoming less true.
(But then I wouldn't know, would I? I'm mixed race. I don't have any culture of my own at all.....)
quote:Because everything else about is so factual?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But I don't think it'd be cultural appropriation whoever played the role, just as long as the role was quintessentially British. Black (and Asian and Chinese and Middle Eastern) people can be British. And given that Bond would be about 90 by now, the idea that you can't make him black because that wouldn't be factually accurate is a bit
quote:If you see misogyny as an essential part of Bond's character, perhaps. Bond was a man because that was part of the 1950's. As the movies are set in the present day, there is nothing to bar a woman from portraying the character.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
In the spirit of Fleming's books Bond probably should be a man.
quote:Those looks, other than being attractive, are not an essential part of the character. Neither, in present day, is being a white man. In reality, BTW, there have been female spies, some of whom used sex like Bond does.
*However* Fleming was pretty clear on who Bond was, what he looked like,
quote:Do untalented Aussies count?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I think you'd have to acknowledge that it was an innovation, on a par with a female Doctor Who.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Could a white British person argue that, say, for a black British actor to play the fictional character James Bond in a film is cultural appropriation? Or are objections to a black Bond racist?
But I don't think it'd be cultural appropriation whoever played the role, just as long as the role was quintessentially British. Black (and Asian and Chinese and Middle Eastern) people can be British. And given that Bond would be about 90 by now, the idea that you can't make him black because that wouldn't be factually accurate is a bit
quote:I believe that might be the call of the Indian tribe in question. If they like the results of the effort, it's not my place to demur.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:You allow a team to be called that without demur?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm happy with the way one local Baseball team The Spokane Indians has dealt with the issue; http://www.milb.com/content/page.jsp?ymd=20100224&content_id=8130724&sid=t486&vkey=team4
The team has worked to help promote the local language to keep it from going extinct.
quote:Arguably then it's no one's place to demur about SLSC unless you are descended from those who originally wrote the song or those for whom the song originally meant something.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:I believe that might be the call of the Indian tribe in question. If they like the results of the effort, it's not my place to demur.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:You allow a team to be called that without demur?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm happy with the way one local Baseball team The Spokane Indians has dealt with the issue; http://www.milb.com/content/page.jsp?ymd=20100224&content_id=8130724&sid=t486&vkey=team4
The team has worked to help promote the local language to keep it from going extinct.
quote:Not quite the same. White actors haven't been prevented from playing white parts.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The issue as to whether a black man could play Bond is the same as whether a white man can play Othello or a gentile Shylock.
quote:Ye Gods, no! *
.Shakespeare would say, I think, that it relates to an actor's abiility to think himself/ herself into the part. A more tricky question is whether a white Othello should "black up".
quote:Or, to reference the Bard, women play men.
If a white person can play Othello then black actors can play white men or women.
quote:It won't be balanced until it ceases being considered newsworthy.
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Latest female inroads into Shakespeare and All Female is a thing.
Jengie
quote:Because Elizabethan theatre never mixed up actors and genders. Oh wait. Because the European tradition was not of constant reinterpretation of classic texts. Oh wait.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I usually dislike transposing drama into inconsistent settings. I normally find attempts to set Shakespeare in different times or dress not excitingly creative but just plain irritating. Likewise female Hamlets. Let the plot tell the story, and don't get in the way.
quote:Wow, Mr Cheesy. I seem to have caught a raw nerve there.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Because Elizabethan theatre never mixed up actors and genders. Oh wait. Because the European tradition was not of constant reinterpretation of classic texts. Oh wait.
Come back when you know even the basics of what you are talking about.
quote:Another person can claim hurt sensitivities and feelings over something I say that they think I don't understand because I haven't had their (or their identity group's) experience, and I can do exactly the same thing in response to something that someone says to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
people would have the right to claim anything they like.
quote:Spiritual blackmail, anyone?
An activity deprecated by many moralists not least our Lord.
quote:All the terms I highlighted in my first post - "a bluff which must always be called", "needs to be called out for the irrational and dishonest bullshit that it is", and "completely unacceptable" - are attempts to close down the discussion. That's my point.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Another person can claim hurt sensitivities and feelings over something I say that they think I don't understand because I haven't had their (or their identity group's) experience, and I can do exactly the same thing in response to something that someone says to me.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
people would have the right to claim anything they like.
What neither of us has the right to do, is use this to attempt to close down the discussion, and avoid other, and possibly far more germane, considerations.
quote:Is the phrase 'spiritual blackmail' itself not an attempt to shut down discussion?
quote:Spiritual blackmail, anyone?
An activity deprecated by many moralists not least our Lord.
Actually, our Lord himself was extremely and publicly critical of others - in particular, self-righteous, moralistic Pharisees.
quote:And yet a Moor is not automatically black. There is a debate about that. The only thing that is relatively certain is that he wouldn't have been white.
Originally posted by Enoch:
The point about Othello is that his identity as a Moor is critical to the plot.
quote:Funny thing: almost all roles black people have played were written for black people. Whether or not the character or story required it. And most characters white people have played are generic, able to be played by anyone. However, black people have almost never been considered for these.
It would become an issue whether a black actor would need to white-up if he or she were playing a part where their being white was likewise critical to the plot,
quote:The American Shakespeare Company did a production of Twelfth Night where Viola and Sebastian, who are twins and supposedly hard to tell apart, were played by a white woman and a black man.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Funny thing: almost all roles black people have played were written for black people. Whether or not the character or story required it. And most characters white people have played are generic, able to be played by anyone. However, black people have almost never been considered for these.
quote:The thing is, education and media being what they were in the Elizabethan era, it's quite unlikely that Shakespeare had much accurate knowledge of any of the non-English locales he wrote about, and was in most cases just creating settings that were basically just the England of his day. (eg. in A Midsummer Night's Dream, set in pre-Christian Athens, people use the name "Mary" as an oath.)
Tangent alert
I usually dislike transposing drama into inconsistent settings. I normally find attempts to set Shakespeare in different times or dress not excitingly creative but just plain irritating. Likewise female Hamlets. Let the plot tell the story, and don't get in the way.
However, there was a version of Julius Caesar set in a modern African state broadcast here on television a few years ago which I thought both worked and was excellent. The actors were all black, and I think mainly British. The acting was extremely good. It wouldn't have worked if it hadn't been. I also thought they caught the accents and nuances of modern African elites pretty well.
quote:No, they are clearing away dead wood so that meaningful discussion can proceed.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
All the terms I highlighted in my first post - "a bluff which must always be called", "needs to be called out for the irrational and dishonest bullshit that it is", and "completely unacceptable" - are attempts to close down the discussion.
quote:It is the fact of practising it, not the phrase naming it, which represents an attempt to "shut down discussion".
Is the phrase 'spiritual blackmail' itself not an attempt to shut down discussion?
quote:You had, and still have, every opportunity to explore why you think Jesus both condemned criticism and engaged in it himself.
We could have argued about when criticism of other people is or is not self-righteous and moralistic. You decided to close the discussion down.
