Unpopular Opinions

[Todd]

...such as singing the entirety of Das Ring der Nibelungen at the start of every KKK meeting, as they were forced to do until country music was invented in the 1950s.

Klan membership peaked in the 1920s.  I knew country music was degenerate.

[Florestan]

For example a white person in Germany wearing a keffiyeh or burqa, which they can do without negative consequences, whereas a middle eastern person wearing one will be seen as potentially a terrorist or encounter harassment etc.

You actually shot yourself in the right foot with this: the skin color of a person wearing a burqa cannot be identified without removing it.

by implying that white culture is superior to other cultures, or responsible for the success of things that come from other cultures, one is basically supporting white supremacy.

Let's take Errol Garner, who's been mentioned above. White culture is responsible for his success, in many ways: (1) it offered him the chance of learning to play the piano, (2) it offered him the venues where he could display his talent in public concerts, (3) it offered him recording facilities, (4) it offered him a cultural  environment in which recordings were cherished and sought after, and (5) it made him famous. I submit for your consideration that none of these would have happened had he been born and raised and living in, say, Camerun.

As for implying that white culture is superior to other cultures, I am reminded of the fuss Saul Below created by saying something to the effect of "show me the Proust and the Tolstoy of the Papuans and I'll be only too happy to read them".

[Brian]

I'm going to pound you on this. The "all" you make such a fuss of is part of Brian's hostile characterization. It is not part of any argument made or quoted here. No-one actually made that claim from what I have seen presented here.

This is correctish; I have not presented evidence because I'm at work and my boss probably doesn't like that I'm even here posting this, let alone researching flame wars from 2009!

Cultural appropriation is not generally a problem; it is simply rude and disrespectful when what is being appropriated is a cultural feature that is or was discouraged or punished in the appropriated-from.

I'd be curious to get your thought on this. In food writing, we have a whole ton of "appropriation" arguments all the time, only more frequent nowadays, and it drives some people crazy. My own approach for writing about the local community has been to ask: (1) is the chef being respectful toward the culture? (2) does the culture have equal opportunity to present itself? (in a strict sense; variables like "who do investors want to bet on" and "is the chef famous" can muddy the waters) (3) is the food super delicious? And if, for instance, a white chef is making super delicious tacos while demonstrating respect for the culture and other taco makers, hey, awesome.

[Ken B]

by implying that white culture is [...] responsible for the success of things that come from other cultures, one is basically supporting white supremacy.

Perhaps. What a relief no-one is doing that. But asserting that one culture influenced "things that come from other cultures" all that "one is basically supporting" is the truth. Only an idiot would deny van Gogh was influenced by Japanese prints, and I can even say out this influence was beneficial, and I can point it out without being a Japanese supremacist.

[bwv 1080]

such as singing the entirety of Das Ring der Nibelungen at the start of every KKK meeting, as they were forced to do until country music was invented in the 1950s.

Country music was invented in the 1920s, not the 50s and, like all American popular music of note, is heavily Africanized.  Think of it as the inverse of blues - blues was a mix of British folk and African traditions from an African American POV where as country music  is just the inverse, white folk music influenced by African traditions.  Country music originated in the mill towns of NC  and there are stories of white musicians going over to the black side of town to pick up ideas then going to their KKK and union meetings (the primary purpose of the labor unions being to limit the factory jobs to white men)

[amw]

You actually shot yourself in the right foot with this: the skin color of a person wearing a burqa cannot be identified without removing it.

When the police arrest someones for wearing a burqa in a jurisdiction where it's illegal, if the burqa proves to contain a white person it is probable they will be treated better.

I submit for your consideration that none of these would have happened had he been born and raised and living in, say, Camerun.

...which is entirely the fault of white people for colonizing that country to steal its wealth and people and suppress its own cultures, and then leaving it as an area zoned, in effect, for poverty and keeping it cut off from the global market economy. So that's not really much of an argument.

I'd be curious to get your thought on this. In food writing, we have a whole ton of "appropriation" arguments all the time, only more frequent nowadays, and it drives some people crazy. My own approach for writing about the local community has been to ask: (1) is the chef being respectful toward the culture? (2) does the culture have equal opportunity to present itself? (in a strict sense; variables like "who do investors want to bet on" and "is the chef famous" can muddy the waters) (3) is the food super delicious? And if, for instance, a white chef is making super delicious tacos while demonstrating respect for the culture and other taco makers, hey, awesome.

I think cultural appropriation issues come from a combination of disrespect and stigma. No one cares if something uncontroversial is appropriated respectfully. There is no stigma against playing Balinese gamelan music, and people from other countries who play that music are not doing anything to create stigma and are following Balinese rules, so a gamelan ensemble at one's university or whatever is generally fine. There is a stigma against the Plains warbonnet due to a long tradition of racist depictions of native Americans in media, so a non-native person (particularly an American) wearing one is kind of rude even if they make an effort to be respectful of its history and meaning. There is no stigma against the kimono, a very common garment in Japan, but many times when non-Japanese people wear them it is to reference sexualised stereotypes of Japanese people from pornography and racist media and therefore don't do that if that's your intention.

Country music was invented in the 1920s, not the 50s and, like all American popular music of note, is heavily Africanized.  Think of it as the inverse of blues - blues was a mix of British folk and African traditions from an African American POV where as country music  is just the inverse, white folk music influenced by African traditions.  Country music originated in the mill towns of NC  and there are stories of white musicians going over to the black side of town to pick up ideas then going to their KKK and union meetings (the primary purpose of the labor unions being to limit the factory jobs to white men)

Yes I am aware of the actual origins of country music. White supremacists tend to downplay the African influence or simply claim it never existed, though.

Also glad you didn't see anything wrong with the suggestion that Klansmen's anthem was a fifteen hour opera. >_>

[Jo498]

The story is John 9 and it is a blind man, not a lame one and the "bystanders" are actually the disciples:
"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

And amw is right that the book of Job is also a big sermon against karmic retribution.
Whatever, it is historically not a question that a lot of what we take for granted as "standard morality" today was developed in exactly one region of the world (and so was modern experimental science, BTW), namely christian Europe, based on Christianity, Judaism and some select features of ancient schools like Stoicism.
Now one can of course claim that this was an accident and it is also true that some things had to be fought for against institutionalized religion. But this is missing the point because the secularized idea of "human rights" arose within the general culture of western christianity and did not really exist anywhere else. And in some cases one can directly show how a formerly christian notion was secularized to arrive at some universal unalienable right etc. Or to put it differently, ideas became so ingrained by centuries of a certain culture that people could (to some extent) just take the core ideas and remove the religious basis.

People should really read Nietzsche; he is entertainingly wicked and extremely smart. (Of course he is wrong about christian or later secularized morals being pernicious slave morality but he is correct about the historical and systematic connections and I think he also has a point that it is not obvious that one can remove the religious grounding without consequences in the long run. It's just that we still are in that running experiment and it might take another few decades to prove him right)

[king ubu]

Let's take Errol Garner, who's been mentioned above. White culture is responsible for his success, in many ways: (1) it offered him the chance of learning to play the piano, (2) it offered him the venues where he could display his talent in public concerts, (3) it offered him recording facilities, (4) it offered him a cultural  environment in which recordings were cherished and sought after, and (5) it made him famous. I submit for your consideration that none of these would have happened had he been born and raised and living in, say, Camerun.

Not sure what this discussion is about, started reading backwards and don't feel like going back to the beginning, but first of all, it Erroll Garner (question of respect in my book), and second of all, that whole statement is such a blatant generalization that it makes no sense to even consider replying to it.

And yes, I may be touchy. I'm not black, but I really hate the arrogant and at the same time extremely ignorant attitude so many people in the classical world (I had Peter Eötvös talk b-s about jazz Monday night, I had discussions with people sitting next to me at the opera etc.) display when discussing jazz, in a manner that they would like to have perceived as knowledgeable and highly cultured and all that, but it's really just an exposure of how little they have understood, and how even less they can be bothered.

/end of rant 

[Ken B]

really hate the arrogant and at the same time extremely ignorant attitude so many people in the classical world ...display when discussing jazz,

You must be new here.  Jazz gets a lot of respect here, and I have never seen it disparaged here either. 

[king ubu]

You must be new here.  Jazz gets a lot of respect here, and I have never seen it disparaged here either.

I didn't specifically point out this forum, but gave a couple of examples. But Florestan's post rubbed me the wrong way indeed and seemed in line with those examples, alas. That may have been even more so as I doreally  respect him in general (from what I have read here, have not been in touch beyond).

[Florestan]

...which is entirely the fault of white people

I was 200% sure that you will come up with this nonsense.

[Pat B]

Actually not. He actually said
"The entirety of black commercial pop music (I use that term in its most generic sense to encompass all song-based popular/commercial music), including all of jazz, blues, R&B, funk, hip-hop and everything else, ..." So he did not say "all jazz" he said "all of [a list]". The "all of" refers to the contents of the list, not the items in the list. Example: You decide to post "They're crooks, all of Trump, his cabinet, his family,..."  you are not calling Trump's left foot a crook, nor does his left foot need to be a crook for your statement to be true; if I could prove his left foot had an alibi at the time it wouldn't make you wrong.

A semantic argument and a ridiculous one. If someone were to say, "The entirety of them are crooks, all of Trump, his cabinet, his family,..." you really parse that to mean only some unspecified part of Trump is a crook, and that some other unspecified part of Trump is not a crook?

He said "entirety," and then he added two clauses of clarification, which he could have used to limit what he meant (as you infer), but instead he used those additional words to emphasize that he meant to "encompass all song-based popular/commercial music." Unless he provided some other clarification that you omitted, then only someone who wants him to mean "some subset of the entirety" could interpret it as "some subset of the entirety."

[Florestan]

Whatever, it is historically not a question that a lot of what we take for granted as "standard morality" today was developed in exactly one region of the world (and so was modern experimental science, BTW), namely christian Europe, based on Christianity, Judaism and some select features of ancient schools like Stoicism.
Now one can of course claim that this was an accident and it is also true that some things had to be fought for against institutionalized religion. But this is missing the point because the secularized idea of "human rights" arose within the general culture of western christianity and did not really exist anywhere else. And in some cases one can directly show how a formerly christian notion was secularized to arrive at some universal unalienable right etc. Or to put it differently, ideas became so ingrained by centuries of a certain culture that people could (to some extent) just take the core ideas and remove the religious basis.

People should really read Nietzsche; he is entertainingly wicked and extremely smart. (Of course he is wrong about christian or later secularized morals being pernicious slave morality but he is correct about the historical and systematic connections and I think he also has a point that it is not obvious that one can remove the religious grounding without consequences in the long run. It's just that we still are in that running experiment and it might take another few decades to prove him right)

Vox clamantis in deserto.

[Ken B]

A semantic argument and a ridiculous one. If someone were to say, "The entirety of them are crooks, all of Trump, his cabinet, his family,..." you really parse that to mean only some unspecified part of Trump is a crook, and that some other unspecified part of Trump is not a crook?

He said "entirety," and then he added two clauses of clarification, which he could have used to limit what he meant (as you infer), but instead he used those additional words to emphasize that he meant to "encompass all song-based popular/commercial music." Unless he provided some other clarification that you omitted, then only someone who wants him to mean "some subset of the entirety" could interpret it as "some subset of the entirety."

You are confused. If I say "all of the sciences owe a debt to the ancient Greeks" I am not saying "all of fluid mechanics, every last result of it, owes a debt to the ancient Greeks". I am saying that fluid mechanics, and biology, and optics, owes a debt to the ancient Greeks. If I say popular literature, all of sci-fi, detective fiction, horror, regency romance, techno-thrillers shows the influence of Edgar Alan Poe I might be right or wrong but I am not saying every page of every science fiction story owes a debt to Poe. Rather I am saying the genre as a whole does.

Oh, and a "semantic" argument about what words mean! Precious.

[Madiel]

I want the last 4 pages of my life back.

[Pat B]

You are confused. If I say "all of the sciences owe a debt to the ancient Greeks" I am not saying "all of fluid mechanics, every last result of it, owes a debt to the ancient Greeks". I am saying that fluid mechanics, and biology, and optics, owes a debt to the ancient Greeks. If I say popular literature, all of sci-fi, detective fiction, horror, regency romance, techno-thrillers shows the influence of Edgar Alan Poe I might be right or wrong but I am not saying every page of every science fiction story owes a debt to Poe. Rather I am saying the genre as a whole does.

Oh, and a "semantic" argument about what words mean! Precious.

The quote you provided stated the subject in three different phrases: "The entirety of black commercial pop music"; "all song-based popular/commercial music"; "all of jazz, blues, R&B, funk, hip-hop and everything else." The third phrase, if considered independently, is arguably ambiguous, so even if we ignore the first two phrases, Karl's reading was not a misreading, but at worst a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statement. But if you consider all three phrases, the quote was not even ambiguous.

[Ken B]

The quote you provided stated the subject in three different phrases: "The entirety of black commercial pop music"; "all song-based popular/commercial music"; "all of jazz, blues, R&B, funk, hip-hop and everything else." The third phrase, if considered independently, is arguably ambiguous, so even if we ignore the first two phrases, Karl's reading was not a misreading, but at worst a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statement. But if you consider all three phrases, the quote was not even ambiguous.

So you've given up complaining that textual exegesis is a semantic argument?

You flagrantly violate the principle of charity in interpretation here. That is obvious. And it's enough.
But what you are claiming is wrong on its face as you can see when he says "and everything else" at the end: meaning all the classifications he didn't list.

You didn't address my examples either. No need to bother as I am frankly tired of the "aha, we can interpret him to say X, and find a case where X isn't true so we can say everything he said under any interpretation is wrong hahaha" game.

[Pat B]

So you've given up complaining that textual exegesis is a semantic argument?

You flagrantly violate the principle of charity in interpretation here. That is obvious. And it's enough.
But what you are claiming is wrong on its face as you can see when he says "and everything else" at the end: meaning all the classifications he didn't list.

You didn't address my examples either. No need to bother as I am frankly tired of the "aha, we can interpret him to say X, and find a case where X isn't true so we can say everything he said under any interpretation is wrong hahaha" game.

I addressed your first example in the first paragraph of my first post.

The inclusion of "and everything else" does not redefine "all" to mean "parts."

I will try to remember the principle of charity in interpretation in the future.

[Florestan]

/end of rant 

For the record: nothing that I wrote was meant or implied as disrespectful to Erroll Garner, both as a man and as a musician. Any such interpretation is contrary to my own thinking.

[Jo498]

I want my previous 4 lives back, I can't go on reincarnating like this 

really bad karma, I guess