|
Post by Cei-U! on Apr 20, 2019 10:09:20 GMT -5
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that like Blue Swede’s version of Hooked on a Feeling and those that like BJ Thomas’. There I said it. No, there are three. You've forgotten those who like neither one. No, there are four.
You've forgotten those who like both.
Cei-U! Not apologizing for it either!
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Apr 20, 2019 13:23:19 GMT -5
No, there are three. You've forgotten those who like neither one. No, there are four.
You've forgotten those who like both.
Cei-U! Not apologizing for it either!
I'm more on Team Blue Swede, but I can respect that.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 20, 2019 17:20:36 GMT -5
I'm partial to the tune " Raindrops are falling on my head".
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,583
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 20, 2019 18:35:40 GMT -5
I'm partial to the tune " Raindrops are falling on my head". Me too. And the film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which features the song in a prominent scene, is my favourite film of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Apr 20, 2019 19:20:04 GMT -5
I'm partial to the tune " Raindrops are falling on my head". Me too. And the film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which features the song in a prominent scene, is my favourite film of all time. It's not my favorite (that'd be Singin' in the Rain) but it's in my Top Ten, if not my Top Five. Definitely my favorite western. I first saw it '71 as a double feature with Altman's original MASH. I still occasionally trot out "You just keep thinkin', Butch."
Cei-U! Gained a whole new appreciation of cinema that night!
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Apr 21, 2019 23:06:49 GMT -5
"Cultural appropriation" has been around since the birth of human civilization. It has shaped every facet of our existence, from our languages to our religions to our dress to our music to our cuisine. Not only is it fundamentally benign, but an integral component of multiculturalism, properly practiced. To characterize it as something bad is, well, #$%^ing moronic.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,583
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 22, 2019 4:03:28 GMT -5
"Cultural appropriation" has been around since the birth of human civilization. It has shaped every facet of our existence, from our languages to our religions to our dress to our music to our cuisine. Not only is it fundamentally benign, but an integral component of multiculturalism, properly practiced. To characterize it as something bad is, well, #$%^ing moronic. I totally agree. Accusations of cultural appropriation anger me greatly because, after all, we're all from the same planet and cultural barriers are, for the most part, damaging things. As you say, societies borrowing from other cultures has always happened and has coloured almost every facet of our modern, multicultural lives. Cultural diversity should be celebrated, shared and enjoyed by all the peoples of Earth. And, to be frank, it is inevitable that societies will appropriate elements from each other more and more in our ever-shrinking world of mass communication. Hell, it even used to happen in the days of old wooden sailing ships -- look at the cross-pollination of cultures between Britain and India for example. So, is me drinking a nice cup of tea or having a tasty curry or listening to Indian sitar music an abhorrent act of cultural appropriation? No, of course not...I'm just innocuously enjoying some of the finer things that Indian culture has to offer. Now, I grant you, Britain's history of Colonialism in India is not something to be overly celebrated (although, it did an awful lot of good, along with the bad...because, you know, life's not black and white like that), but I can scarcely be blamed for the crimes of a Colonial era that ended 25 years before I was born. Basically, as long as there's no hatred or racist intent behind it, I don't think there's a problem with borrowing from other cultures. The world is fast becoming one giant melting pot anyway, and there's little harm in, say, a young white American girl wearing a Chinese-style dress to her prom, or a bunch of English children having a piñata filled with sweets at a birthday party (to cite two examples that I've seen receive criticism in recent times). Accusations of cultural appropriation and the social media-based "mob justice" that often accompanies it do nothing but further divide us as a global population. That's particularly unhelpful at a time when, we --- as a global population -- have much bigger fish to fry, what with wars, famine, hatecrimes, climate change etc. We should be coming together and sharing the diverse riches of our cultures and our beautiful planet, not trying to further segregate our shared cultural history.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 22, 2019 7:17:41 GMT -5
Cultural appropriation is a made up bit of nonsense invented to give angry people yet something else to be angry about.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2019 8:39:43 GMT -5
I'm partial to the tune " Raindrops are falling on my head". Me too. And the film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which features the song in a prominent scene, is my favourite film of all time. Same here too.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 24, 2019 7:42:23 GMT -5
It's very hard to make a large round logo work on a t-shirt. Ditto for a centred, narrow vertical logo. That is unfortunate, because most martial arts t-shirts have a big round sun as their background or a single, centred line of kanji.
A round logo works best on the back, and a vertical logo works best over the heart.
There! I've said it.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 24, 2019 8:13:00 GMT -5
"Cultural appropriation" has been around since the birth of human civilization. It has shaped every facet of our existence, from our languages to our religions to our dress to our music to our cuisine. Not only is it fundamentally benign, but an integral component of multiculturalism, properly practiced. To characterize it as something bad is, well, #$%^ing moronic. I totally agree. Accusations of cultural appropriation anger me greatly because, after all, we're all from the same planet and cultural barriers are, for the most part, damaging things. As you say, societies borrowing from other cultures has always happened and has coloured almost every facet of our modern, multicultural lives. Cultural diversity should be celebrated, shared and enjoyed by all the peoples of Earth. And, to be frank, it is inevitable that societies will appropriate elements from each other more and more in our ever-shrinking world of mass communication. Hell, it even used to happen in the days of old wooden sailing ships -- look at the cross-pollination of cultures between Britain and India for example. So, is me drinking a nice cup of tea or having a tasty curry or listening to Indian sitar music an abhorrent act of cultural appropriation? No, of course not...I'm just innocuously enjoying some of the finer things that Indian culture has to offer. Now, I grant you, Britain's history of Colonialism in India is not something to be overly celebrated (although, it did an awful lot of good, along with the bad...because, you know, life's not black and white like that), but I can scarcely be blamed for the crimes of a Colonial era that ended 25 years before I was born. Basically, as long as there's no hatred or racist intent behind it, I don't think there's a problem with borrowing from other cultures. The world is fast becoming one giant melting pot anyway, and there's little harm in, say, a young white American girl wearing a Chinese-style dress to her prom, or a bunch of English children having a piñata filled with sweets at a birthday party (to cite two examples that I've seen receive criticism in recent times). Accusations of cultural appropriation and the social media-based "mob justice" that often accompanies it do nothing but further divide us as a global population. That's particularly unhelpful at a time when, we --- as a global population -- have much bigger fish to fry, what with wars, famine, hatecrimes, climate change etc. We should be coming together and sharing the diverse riches of our cultures and our beautiful planet, not trying to further segregate our shared cultural history. I'd submit that borrowing and appropriating are two different actions. The former is obvious and usually acknowledged by the borrower, the latter is essentially cultural plagiarism. The Christmas tree was borrowed from Germany, pinatas from Mexico and all kinds of cuisine from all kinds of places. We have blended families of all kinds -- religious, ethnic, racial -- that create a new family culture by borrowing from their unique traditions. Elvis borrowed his style from black singers and musicians, but when he was revered as if he had sprung full-grown from the head of Euterpe sometime in 1956 and "race music" was rechristened "rock 'n' roll," the work and creativity of generations of musicians were ignored and the majority appropriated them as its own. I don't think Elvis was doing do willfully, just as the Beatles weren't with Chuck Berry or the Stones with Howlin' Wolf and Leadbelly. Bing Crosby had been the face of the same process decades before. A marginalized group's innovations were scrubbed up, given a face and a demeanor more "presentable" to the majority and were then further marginalized in order to turn those innovations into a profitable industry. That's an example of appropriation and it's the kind of insult that serious commenters are concerned with. As for bearing the blame for crimes done by our ancestors against others 25 or 250 years ago, I'm sorry. When one's way of life is appreciably improved at the expense of other people's, we may not bear blame in the strictest sense of the word, but we certainly bear responsibility to try to make amends for what went on before. Oedipus bore the curse of his father; his children bore his curse. Christians believe that they are stained by the sin of Adam. In like manner, none of us (at least on this board) was or is responsible for evils like slavery and imperialism and genocide, but large portions of our societies are still benefiting (if that's the correct word) form those evils. You don't get to keep ill-gotten gains even if you're sorry about how you arrived by them.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,583
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 24, 2019 11:57:58 GMT -5
I'd submit that borrowing and appropriating are two different actions. The former is obvious and usually acknowledged by the borrower, the latter is essentially cultural plagiarism. The Christmas tree was borrowed from Germany, pinatas from Mexico and all kinds of cuisine from all kinds of places. We have blended families of all kinds -- religious, ethnic, racial -- that create a new family culture by borrowing from their unique traditions. And, as I say, as long as there is as no hatred or racist intent behind it, I don't see any problem with so-called "cultural plagiarism". Intent is everything; if there's no malice in it, then there's no problem. These examples you cite, and many thousands of others that colour and improve our day to day lives, have made us all in the UK and America better off as a society. Without wanting to sound like an old hippie, we are all one planet; we are all one people. "Our" culture is all culture, as long as it is treated with respect. Elvis borrowed his style from black singers and musicians, but when he was revered as if he had sprung full-grown from the head of Euterpe sometime in 1956 and "race music" was rechristened "rock 'n' roll," the work and creativity of generations of musicians were ignored and the majority appropriated them as its own. I don't think Elvis was doing do willfully, just as the Beatles weren't with Chuck Berry or the Stones with Howlin' Wolf and Leadbelly. Bing Crosby had been the face of the same process decades before. A marginalized group's innovations were scrubbed up, given a face and a demeanor more "presentable" to the majority and were then further marginalized in order to turn those innovations into a profitable industry. That's an example of appropriation and it's the kind of insult that serious commenters are concerned with. This isn't quite right. For one thing, the music that was coming out on "race records" was not rock 'n' roll. Contrary to what some black performers and white historians have suggested over the years, African Americans did not invent rock 'n' roll, and neither was it stolen from them by the white folks. Rock 'n' Roll came about when the black R&B of the 1940s and early '50s (which represented the last knockings of the "race records" that you mention) collided with white country and folk music. This created what was initially a uniquely American style of music. Now, I know it's become fashionable to cite "Rocket 88" by Jackie Brenston or "Down the Road Apiece" by Amos Milburn as the first rock 'n' roll record, but they weren't. They are jump blues records, despite sounding rather rock 'n' roll-ish, I'll admit. The first bona fide rock 'n' roll record was really "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Haley & His Comets. Now, certain modern commentators don't like that much because Haley was a fat, middle-aged, white guy, and he hardly cut the figure one would want to associate with the birth of such a cool genre as rock 'n' roll. But the fact remains that in terms of having the sound, the energy, and in popularising this new hybrid music genre, Haley was there first. You are, of course, absolutely correct that many black performers were not played on mainstream white American radio at the time. But I would counter that this was simply a side-product of America's wider racist society. Black rock 'n' rollers were played widely on rock orientated stations in the UK and Europe in the late '50s for example. It also had very little to do with the likes of Elvis Presley, Bill Hayley, Buddy Holly etc as people...or even their record companies, who just went where the money was, which was unfortunately white mainstream radio. You're also forgetting about black rock 'n' rollers like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Fats Domino etc who had considerable success with mainstream white teenage audiences (even if their parents didn't like it). So, when it comes to black musicians being marginalized, it's not quite as clear cut as you're suggesting.
Likewise, the birth of rock 'n' roll is far more complicated than it simply being a case of African American innovations being "scrubbed up". Yes, black musicians were major contributors to rock 'n' roll, of course, but it took the white folk's country and folk influences to make it into what it is. Rock 'n' roll or pop/rock music...whatever you wanna call it...is a fusion genre and always has been. This only gets more pronounced if we look at how rock 'n' roll evolved in the 1960s. The Beatles and the British Invasion weren't only selling black music back to the white Americans (although they were doing that as well, for sure), but they were also changing and improving rock 'n' roll, as they went along. For instance, the folk-influenced chord progressions and harmonies that the Beatles brought to pop music was far in advance of anything that contemporary African American musicians were recording at the time (at least in rock 'n' roll, jazz is a different matter). So, was the British Invasion the result of cultural appropriation? Maybe, but the results were glorious and the intent (there's that word again) was to celebrate the black and white musicians that these groups idolized, while also improving upon their work and moving it away from its 12-bar blues origins. Personally, I think pop or rock music is one of the very best advertisements for the benefits of cultural cross-pollination. But with regards to your wider point about white rock 'n' roll musicians being guilty of cultural appropriation, I don't see your point. Should the black musicians who play(ed) music indebted to European folk music, such as Lead Belly, Odetta, Elizabeth Cotton, Richie Havens etc be castigated for their cultural appropriation? I really don't believe so, anymore than I, as a British musician playing a lot of American music -- some of it written and recorded by African Americans, some of it by Caucasian musicians -- should feel guilt. I deeply respect the musicians who created the music I play, and in playing those songs I am, in some small way, celebrating their music (as well as giving them and their estates royalties). Again, intent is the thing here.
As for bearing the blame for crimes done by our ancestors against others 25 or 250 years ago, I'm sorry. When one's way of life is appreciably improved at the expense of other people's, we may not bear blame in the strictest sense of the word, but we certainly bear responsibility to try to make amends for what went on before. Oedipus bore the curse of his father; his children bore his curse. Christians believe that they are stained by the sin of Adam. In like manner, none of us (at least on this board) was or is responsible for evils like slavery and imperialism and genocide, but large portions of our societies are still benefiting (if that's the correct word) form those evils. You don't get to keep ill-gotten gains even if you're sorry about how you arrived by them. I'm sorry, but I think that this is absolute nonsense. I've really got no time for liberal guilt...or any part of liberalism, actually. In the case of India (which was the example I mentioned earlier), colonialism wrought some absolutely terrible things, for sure, but what the hell am I supposed to do about it? What white liberal self-flagellation do you recommend, Hal? And let's not forget all the positives that the British brought to India either. Though it might've been misguided, many of the British in India saw British rule as something of a charitable exercise. After all, they brought with them education, rail and road transportation, medicine, irrigation, economic development, science, our criminal justice system, modern construction techniques, telecommunications...the list goes on. So, should modern Indians be thankful to me for how much better my forefathers have made their country? Or should they be beating themselves up for "culturally appropriating" our game of Cricket? Of course not, either would be ridiculous. I am not responsible for my forefather's actions and neither are they. I maintain that accusations of "cultural appropriation" are unhelpful and are usually banded about as the cause of a range different social problems, with little in the way of convincing proof that they lie at the root. Such terms allow a "hollier than thou" mob of social media bullies to further divide us as a global population. We should be embracing and sharing the diverse riches of our cultures, while working towards a multicultural world. But you cannot have multiculturalism without different cultures borrowing or even stealing from each other.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Apr 24, 2019 22:30:41 GMT -5
Confessor, your musical knowledge, as always, is impressive and far exceeds anything I could bring to the table, but I still beg to differ about the origins of rock and roll. Yes, you can hear Elvis in ’54 singing “Blue Moon of Kentucky” (on Sun Records— he was still an unknown when it was recorded) and realize that it’s a melange of sped-up bluegrass, country, and a tad of r’n'b. But the mixture of r’n’b and country produced rockabilly — and the wonderful Carl Perkins and the best of Elvis. But… if one considers Chuck Berry and Little Richard as the true fathers of rock and roll, then Louis Jordan and Joe Turner were their inspirations. (And Berry and Little Richard said so.) And Louis Jordan (who played with Louis Armstrong’s big band in the early ‘40s) and Joe Turner were African-American. “Rock Around the Clock,” as wonderful as it is, is a white guy putting his own touches on black music. (It’s a lot like Vanilla Ice recording the best selling “rap” single of its time). And the GREAT Milt Gabler — Billy Crystal’s uncle — who recorded Billie Holiday's “Strange Fruit” for his independent Commodore label in ’39 when Columbia wouldn’t touch it, and who also recorded Louis Armstrong for Decca, produced “Rock Around the Clock.” I respect your opinion, but I’ll still say that r’n’b and country produced rockabilly (an incredible music), NOT the rock and roll of Berry, Little Richard, etc. The grandfathers of rock and roll were the 1940s/early 50s r’n’b artists, who were all black. I still think that the big picture, which is the one most of society perceives, derives from appropriation. The way history was spun in the bad old days, all black music was essentially "race music" and was deemed unsuitable and immoral for white people. It was the tastemakers, the record companies, the marketers, who realized that at last they could make money off this kind of music, because they could make it palatable to a mass white audience by presenting it as if it were some brand-new phenomenon created by cute white guys. Of course the Beatles weren’t trying to steal anything from Chuck Berry; they loved his music and wanted to sing and play like him. They were the first ones to own up to their many musical influences. (BTW, it was The Beatles’ cover of Smokey Robinson’s “You Really Got A Hold on Me” on WITH THE BEATLES was the version that helped to popularize Motown in Great Britain.) Thanks to Elvis and Bill Haley, etc., the record and music and TV people could present a homogenized, pasteurized version to the mass audience without seeming to be destroying public morals. Though the Elvises and Beatles of the world weren't "appropriating" black music, their borrowings, thanks to the suits, became the widely accepted versions; they’d done the same thing with Bing Crosby’s take on black artists' music in the 20s and 30s. The Stones and Beatles could talk about Berry and Howlin' Wolf and Crosby about Louis Armstrong sincerely and appreciatively till they were blue in the face, but as far the vast majority of people were concerned, their versions and styles were the real thing because they’d been popularized by the white media. And black culture and artists were pushed to the side yet again. As for your claim that inherited guilt, for lack of a better expression, is nonsense, you sound pretty easily threatened. Don’t know if you’re a native Indian, but I wouldn’t presume to assert, as you seem to, that the trade-off of cricket for the privilege of enduring the Raj was a great deal. Yes, I know you mentioned all that technology and infrastructure that Britain gave India out of the goodness of its colonialist heart, but there’s absolutely no way that what Britain got in exchange for what they “gave” from their many years of imperialism is in any way a fair bargain or negates the violence and slaughter wreaked in the name of the Empire. And why does Kipling come to mind as I read that bit about the British domination of India being a “charitable exercise”? I’m not on my high horse here, either. The same goes for the imperialism of the United States; just look at the proud legacy of flourishing democracies we’ve left as our legacy: the Philippines, Haiti, and Cuba jump immediately to mind. And need I mention how well our greed and genocidal policies have paid off so handsomely for Native Americans? Or that centuries of slavery are still exacting a price every single day here in our country? I’m sorry you have no time for “liberal guilt;” by inference, I assume you favor conservative amnesia or indifference. Sorry if I exposed your raw nerve here, but “liberal self-flagellation” is quite a step further from what I was saying. Granted, none of us can solve any of these problems alone; to be honest, I don’t know that we can ever set right the kinds of injustices that have been done to the vast majority of the world’s people by a tiny minority, but may I suggest empathy, or at least sympathy, or barring that, compassion. Failing all those, how about pragmatism? Unless and until those qualities are reflected in public policy, we will continue to live in a world woefully unfair, a world dominated by a relative few who have long benefited from the sweat and the suffering of the many. Lumping appropriation in with meaningless do-gooding is a gross oversimplification, a defense, a security blanket; it reminds me of the little kid closing his eyes and covering his ears while screaming so that he can live in self-imposed ignorance of an unpleasant occurrence. It’s much in practice now in Europe and here in the US: nativism, nationalism, Brexit, Trump, the screams of injured snowflakes blaming political correctness and “social justice warriors” for all their problems, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. You and I certainly agree – I think – about the significance of multi-culturalism. But “multi” means “many,” not one blended mess. The term implies respect for all those many cultures, not lip service. And borrowing and stealing are not equivalent. The ends you think are attained by the latter not only do not justify the means, they defeat the purpose of borrowing.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,583
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 25, 2019 7:43:44 GMT -5
Confessor , your musical knowledge, as always, is impressive and far exceeds anything I could bring to the table, but I still beg to differ about the origins of rock and roll. Yes, you can hear Elvis in ’54 singing “Blue Moon of Kentucky” (on Sun Records— he was still an unknown when it was recorded) and realize that it’s a melange of sped-up bluegrass, country, and a tad of r’n'b. But the mixture of r’n’b and country produced rockabilly — and the wonderful Carl Perkins and the best of Elvis. But… if one considers Chuck Berry and Little Richard as the true fathers of rock and roll, then Louis Jordan and Joe Turner were their inspirations. (And Berry and Little Richard said so.) And Louis Jordan (who played with Louis Armstrong’s big band in the early ‘40s) and Joe Turner were African-American. “Rock Around the Clock,” as wonderful as it is, is a white guy putting his own touches on black music. (It’s a lot like Vanilla Ice recording the best selling “rap” single of its time). And the GREAT Milt Gabler — Billy Crystal’s uncle — who recorded Billie Holiday's “Strange Fruit” for his independent Commodore label in ’39 when Columbia wouldn’t touch it, and who also recorded Louis Armstrong for Decca, produced “Rock Around the Clock.” I respect your opinion, but I’ll still say that r’n’b and country produced rockabilly (an incredible music), NOT the rock and roll of Berry, Little Richard, etc. The grandfathers of rock and roll were the 1940s/early 50s r’n’b artists, who were all black. Well, yes, you're correct when you say that Rockabilly has far more obvious country leanings than, say, Chuck Berry's rock 'n' roll output, but there's still country influences in Berry's music, for sure, as I'll explain later. You are correct that Rockabilly is probably the strain of rock 'n' roll with the most obvious country influences, although the music of the Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly and Fats Domino is also very country influenced and none of those three acts played Rockabilly per se. So, again, it's not quite as clear cut as being a case of only Rockabilly has a country influence. It's just that Rockabilly has perhaps the most obvious country leanings. But when it comes to "Rock Around the Clock", it is precisely Bill Haley "putting his own touches on black music", as you say, that makes it rock 'n' roll. It's the increased energy (just listen to the 'crack' of the snare drum or the wild abandon of Danny Cedrone's guitar solo, for example) and the Western Swing influence that he grafted onto the black Rhythm and Blues beat that makes it Rock 'n' Roll. That record was cut in April 1954; no black recording artist was playing this hybrid of RnB and country music in early 1954. Little Richard, Bo Diddly, Fats Domino, Chuck Berry etc all began playing rock 'n' roll after Haley had cut "Rock Around the Clock" and Elvis Prersley had recorded his Sun Records sessions. Prior to that they had simply been playing blues, or the more up-tempo rhythm & blues or jump blues. In the case of Chuck Berry, his rock 'n ' roll recordings came more than a year after Haley's "Rock Around the Clock". Significantly though, Berry's very first rock 'n' roll record, "Maybellene", was actually a reworking of the Western Swing song "Ida Red" by the white country group Bob Wills and his Texas Playboys. So, there again, we see that rock 'n' roll --- even when played by a black recording artist -- is made up of R&B and country music influences. And this is really the crux of what I'm saying: early white rock 'n' rollers were not simply playing the exact same music that black musicians were already playing; they took the black R&B music that existed and blended it with country and folk influences to create something new...and then the black artists began to play this new hybrid as well. If you don't believe me, then I refer you to the Allmusic Guide to Rock (which is widely regarded as one of the definitive encyclopedias on the subject), which has this to say about the genres that fused in order to create rock 'n' roll: "Early rock & roll drew from a variety of sources, primarily blues, R&B, and country, but also gospel, traditional pop, jazz, and folk." So, as it says, early rock 'n' roll is primarily a blend of blues, R&B, and country. No black musician was blending country music with blues or R&B prior to Bill Haley or Elvis Presley. Rock 'n' roll was not stolen from black performers; it was created by the blend and cross-pollination of black and white musical styles. As for your claim that inherited guilt, for lack of a better expression, is nonsense, you sound pretty easily threatened. Don’t know if you’re a native Indian, but I wouldn’t presume to assert, as you seem to, that the trade-off of cricket for the privilege of enduring the Raj was a great deal. Ha! Well, obviously I was being somewhat flippant in my suggestion that Indians playing cricket was cultural appropriation. Of course India's love of cricket doesn't make up for the horrors of the Raj. But, my wider point was that cultural cross-pollination goes both ways -- Indians can enjoy playing cricket, and I can enjoy a tasty curry; I can wear a Nehru jacket on my wedding day, and an Indian fellow can get married in a Saville Row suit if he wants. Cultural exchange in this manner is a great thing and it enriches everybody's lives. Yes, I know you mentioned all that technology and infrastructure that Britain gave India out of the goodness of its colonialist heart, but there’s absolutely no way that what Britain got in exchange for what they “gave” from their many years of imperialism is in any way a fair bargain or negates the violence and slaughter wreaked in the name of the Empire. And why does Kipling come to mind as I read that bit about the British domination of India being a “charitable exercise”? Well, Kipling was a man of his times. Sad to say, a lot of the British in India at that time really did see their presence in the country as a charitable exercise. You have to understand that the British mindset at the time was that "God was on our side" (to quote Bob Dylan), and our "civilising" of the Indian sub-continent was God's will. I honestly think that, for the most part, the British in India really did believe that they were doing God's work and making India a better place for Englishman and Indian alike. But my wider point is that, although its very fashionable these days to denounce all aspects of Colonialism, the truth of the matter is that, in the case of India, millions of Indians did benefit from the British presence there. Of course, this went hand in hand with terrible subjugation, injustice and cruelty, which should never be overlooked. But, the fact remains that life is not black and white. Not all aspects of the Raj were terrible. And I would even go so far as to say that India's emergence in the late 20th century and early 21st century as a thriving global economy, happened, in part, because of the benefits of Colonialism, and not simply in spite of it. I’m sorry you have no time for “liberal guilt;” by inference, I assume you favor conservative amnesia or indifference. Sorry if I exposed your raw nerve here, but “liberal self-flagellation” is quite a step further from what I was saying. I'm certainly no conservative...I'm a left-winger through and through. But I'm definitely not liberal...at least, not in terms of recognising liberalism as a workable political ideology. I definitely do have some core liberal values, but I think "indifference" sums up my position on this particular matter. I see no point in beating myself up or wringing my hands about the actions of people who lived in the decades or centuries before I was born. I can be critical of those actions or not, as the case may be, and I understand that those actions have shaped the modern world that I live in, but ultimately, I am powerless to change it. So, why fret about it? Granted, none of us can solve any of these problems alone; to be honest, I don’t know that we can ever set right the kinds of injustices that have been done to the vast majority of the world’s people by a tiny minority, but may I suggest empathy, or at least sympathy, or barring that, compassion. Failing all those, how about pragmatism? Unless and until those qualities are reflected in public policy, we will continue to live in a world woefully unfair, a world dominated by a relative few who have long benefited from the sweat and the suffering of the many. Lumping appropriation in with meaningless do-gooding is a gross oversimplification, a defense, a security blanket; it reminds me of the little kid closing his eyes and covering his ears while screaming so that he can live in self-imposed ignorance of an unpleasant occurrence. It’s much in practice now in Europe and here in the US: nativism, nationalism, Brexit, Trump, the screams of injured snowflakes blaming political correctness and “social justice warriors” for all their problems, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. You and I certainly agree – I think – about the significance of multi-culturalism. But “multi” means “many,” not one blended mess. The term implies respect for all those many cultures, not lip service. And borrowing and stealing are not equivalent. The ends you think are attained by the latter not only do not justify the means, they defeat the purpose of borrowing. Well, I'm gonna ignore your lumping Brexit in with Trump and other right-wing agendas, because, as I've said in the forum before, American's talking about Brexit and Trump as they're the same thing is a real bug bear of mine. Brexit, for the vast majority of those who voted for it (many of which are committed left-wing voters BTW), is not an exercise in nationalism, isolationism or racism: it was an exercise in regaining political sovereignty and extricating ourselves from a fundamentally undemocratic European Union. It is not anti-Europe or anti-Europeans. It is anti-EU. There's a difference. But, enough of that....I really don't want to get into a Brexit debate here. Especially since its outside of the Politics thread, and, as a moderator, I shouldn't be encouraging that. But, with regards to your larger point above, life's hard and life's unfair. It always has been and it always will be. Plenty of people of all creeds and colours have disadvantaged starts in life. How much things like "cultural appropriation", "white privilege" or "unconscious bias" (or whatever buzz term you want to use) has to do with that is, at best, highly debatable, and at worst, largely irrelevant. We all have to play the hand we are dealt in life and make the best of it. To seek to make the world a fairer place for all is commendable and wise. To think that we will one day eradicate unfairness and oppression entirely is folly. I'm repeating myself now, but I maintain that all cultural cross-pollination that is born from a respectful or innocuous place is a good thing. Cultural barriers are, for the most part, damaging constructs anyway. Whether we deem it "borrowing" or "stealing", I think that sharing in each other's cultural heritage brings us closer together as a world. That can only be a good thing. As I said in an earlier post, this blurring of cultural delineations is an inevitable consequence of global mass communication opening up our borders and enabling us to share in the whole world's cultural heritage. A phrase like "cultural appropriation" and the attendant bullying that often goes along with it is unhelpful and, in my opinion, actively serves -- in some small way -- to hinder the quest for a more harmonious world
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 25, 2019 9:31:13 GMT -5
I see no point in beating myself up or wringing my hands about the actions of people who lived in the decades or centuries before I was born. I can be critical of those actions or not, as the case may be, and I understand that those actions have shaped the modern world that I live in, but ultimately, I am powerless to change it. So, why fret about it? Well, you definitely should demand that Denmark apologize for the sack of Lindisfarne abbey. I fully agree with you. If some unfair historical situation persists today, it is our duty to correct it right now (as if, say, slavery was still extant in the United States or if women are paid less than men for the same job). But if some unfair historical situation has led to an unrelated modern problem, then we must address the modern problem; not despair at what our ancestors have wrought as if it could somehow gain us some kind of absolution that is irrelevant and rather self-serving. (I'm looking at you, Justin Trudeau). I would go as far as to say that it is a distraction that prevents us from addressing the real issues plaguing parts of our population, and a distraction that sets us at loggerhead with each other to boot. The problem with police officers shooting unarmed black kids is not that rock and roll was invented by people with black, brown, beige or pink skin; it is that police officers are shooting unarmed black kids. That's what we should be worried about. Again I fully agree. "Virtuous" cultural barriers being erected between communities (even when said communities don't even actually exist, but form ad hoc protest groups based on some common perceived slight) are antithetical to what a modern society should be. E pluribus unum, says the motto of the United States; everyone brings something to the table, and everyone is the better for it. Things like preventing a singer from performing because she's the wrong color, things like preventing a cook from making some dish because he's not "ethnic" enough, are at 180 degrees of what I imagine a modern, Roddenberry world to be. Racism, bigotry, fanaticism, selfishness, greed, those are real issues. Respectfully calling a sports team "the Vikings" or "the Braves" is not.
|
|