Should white people perform the blues?

[fromderinside]

duplicate too

 

[fromderinside]

duplicate

 

[Frikki]

Should black people perform Classical music?

<edit>

 

[fromderinside]

TOPIC: THE WHYS AND WHEREFORES OF THE BLUES


"very fundamental rule....":

Its not a rule if it doesn't make space for Eric and his "Layla" !!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX5USg8_1gA

 

[fromderinside]

Should black people perform Classical music?

<edited for consistency>

 

[Derec]

<edited for consistency>

 

[fromderinside]

<edited for consistency>

 

[Derec]

When I was a boy elevator operators scared me....... now its all automated and CCTed.

No, it would be scary because any flashback to before I was born would be scary.

 

[Frikki]

When I was a boy elevator operators scared me....... now its all automated and CCTed.

No, it would be scary because any flashback to before I was born would be scary.

I always imagined you as an old codger, that grew up before the civil and women's rights movement.

 

[Metaphor]

As soon as you see the word 'appropriation' in an argument, it's already failed.

No-one can own a culture. No-one owns a music genre.

And if there are some White artists singing the Blues who are better than some Black artists singing the Blues, they are not 'stealing' market share. They earned the market share.

The cream will rise to the top.

No pun intended.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

As soon as you see the word 'appropriation' in an argument, it's already failed.

No-one can own a culture. No-one owns a music genre.

And if there are some White artists singing the Blues who are better than some Black artists singing the Blues, they are not 'stealing' market share. They earned the market share.

The cream will rise to the top.

No pun intended.

The Problem isn't white folk singing the blues. the only pre-requisite to singing/playing the blues is having had the blues.

The problem stems from ... how can I put this so that the even people of the meanest of intelligence, the most socially limited, the most emotionally immature, can understand this ...

Pat Boone

The problem stems form Pat Boone

Not him personally, but from what became indicative of his career.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

As soon as you see the word 'appropriation' in an argument, it's already failed.

No, it hasn't

No-one can own a culture. No-one owns a music genre.

And if there are some White artists singing the Blues who are better than some Black artists singing the Blues, they are not 'stealing' market share. They earned the market share.

The cream will rise to the top.

No pun intended.

If you think music is just about market share, it is you who have already lost the argument.

 

[Sabine Grant]

As soon as you see the word 'appropriation' in an argument, it's already failed.

No-one can own a culture. No-one owns a music genre.

Since you made a broad wide statement in the absolute that "no-one can own a culture", I will submit a report which disagrees with your contention.

http://www.frankellawyers.com.au/media/report/culture.pdf

Starting with defining the why of the recognition of " Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property" duly illustrated in the introduction of Chapter 1 :

Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights refers to Indigenous Australians rights to their Heritage. Such rights are also known as Indigenous Heritage Rights.

Heritage consists of the intangible and tangible aspects of the whole body of cultural practices, resources, and knowledge systems developed, nurtured and refined by Indigenous people and passed on by them as part of expressing their cultural identity.

Note the term "Property" which confirms the significance of "owning". I will await your counter argumentation to the above where I challenge you to demonstrate that there is no legitimate value to Heritage, no possible legitimate claim to Heritage and therefor no possible legitimate claim of Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights.

The above specifically challenges your broad wide applied statement which you formulated in the absolute :

No-one can own a culture

 

[Derec]

Since you made a broad wide statement in the absolute that "no-one can own a culture", I will submit a report which disagrees with your contention.

http://www.frankellawyers.com.au/media/report/culture.pdf

Unfortunately misplaced white guilt has led to giving so-called "indigenous" peoples special rights that do not exist otherwise.
Rather than refuting Methaphor's argument, it highlights how giving certain ethnicities special legal rights is wrong.

 

[Derec]

I always imagined you as an old codger, that grew up before the civil and women's rights movement.

I always imagined you as an old codger who grew up throughout those movements.

I think individuals should have equal rights regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. But I think that also includes that there should be no "positive" discrimination in favor of certain races, ethnicities or gender because "positive" discrimination in favor of a group is always negative discrimination against another. Unfortunately the "civil and women's rights movements" you mention took a "wrong turn at Albuquerque" when so-called "modern liberals" abandoned the actually liberal values of individual rights and freedoms and substituted collectivism and group identity which spawned quite illiberal movements like "Black Power" and "Second Wave Feminism" and the unfortunately very successful movement to enshrine special rights for American Indians and other so-called "indigenous" groups into (in my opinion grossly unconstitutional) laws.
This thread is illustrative of this streak of group identity over individual values inherent in so-called "modern liberalism". Whites shouldn't play the blues because black group identity "owns" certain music genres which trumps individual white person's wish to play certain music. And of course, the same argumentation is not accepted for music genres developed by white people because some group identities are more equal than others.

To sum up, I think everybody who wants to pursue any type of music (or other artistic endeavor like dance) should by all means do so, regardless of their group membership. That is truly a liberal attitude.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Since you made a broad wide statement in the absolute that "no-one can own a culture", I will submit a report which disagrees with your contention.

http://www.frankellawyers.com.au/media/report/culture.pdf

Unfortunately misplaced white guilt has led to giving so-called "indigenous" peoples special rights that do not exist otherwise.
Rather than refuting Methaphor's argument, it highlights how giving certain ethnicities special legal rights is wrong.

Is that supposed to address the challenge I presented to Metaphor? Are you in agreement with his quoted broad wide statement formulated in the absolute " no-one can own a culture"?

And Metaphor presented no argument supporting his broad wide statement formulated in the absolute. He only made that statement. You jump in, speculating about white guilt, further babbling about "so called "indigenous" people" when the documented I linked to developing on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights addresses the Heritage Rights of Aborigines.

Then, you declare "special rights that do not exist otherwise" and that they are "wrong". More diluted babbling which in no way addresses the challenge I presented to Metaphor while I linked to a report which develops and expands on why the existence of Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights benefiting an indigenous group which can hardly be defined as "so called indigenous".

Reminder and again : Metaphor made a broad wide statement and in the absolute, stating " No-one can own a culture". Well there is plenty of argumentation in the documented report I linked to supporting why the Indigenous people of Australia benefit of Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights based on the value of Heritage. Care to counter argue the presented pro argumentation from the linked to report? Of course you would have to read this report. Which you did not, obviously.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it hasn't

You cannot "appropriate" something that doesn't belong to anyone. Or, if people are 'appropriating', everyone is doing it, Black and White. So unless you think it's somehow illegitimate to appropriate across colour lines, then the term is meaningless. And if you do think it's illegitimate, you have to explain how.

If you think music is just about market share, it is you who have already lost the argument.

I didn't bring up market share, the article in the OP did, when it referred to 'stealing' from Blacks.

 

[Metaphor]

Since you made a broad wide statement in the absolute that "no-one can own a culture", I will submit a report which disagrees with your contention.

http://www.frankellawyers.com.au/media/report/culture.pdf

Starting with defining the why of the recognition of " Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property" duly illustrated in the introduction of Chapter 1 :

Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights refers to Indigenous Australians rights to their Heritage. Such rights are also known as Indigenous Heritage Rights.

Heritage consists of the intangible and tangible aspects of the whole body of cultural practices, resources, and knowledge systems developed, nurtured and refined by Indigenous people and passed on by them as part of expressing their cultural identity.

Note the term "Property" which confirms the significance of "owning". I will await your counter argumentation to the above where I challenge you to demonstrate that there is no legitimate value to Heritage, no possible legitimate claim to Heritage and therefor no possible legitimate claim of Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights.

The above specifically challenges your broad wide applied statement which you formulated in the absolute :

No-one can own a culture

I am not going to read a 380 page report to see how (or if) it challenges my assumption. I want you to make an argument that someone can own a culture.

I reject the premise that anybody can own a culture.

 

[Derec]

Is that supposed to address the challenge I presented to Metaphor? Are you in agreement with his quoted broad wide statement formulated in the absolute " no-one can own a culture"?

How about we amend it to "no one should be able to own culture"? Because it is clear that governments can and often do pass extremely wrongheaded and misguided laws. That said, it seems the paper you posted is about a proposal by some activists, not an actual law.

You jump in, speculating about white guilt,

Not speculating. "White guilt" is clearly the motivator for giving so-called "indigenous" special rights.

further babbling about "so called "indigenous" people" when the documented I linked to developing on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights addresses the Heritage Rights of Aborigines.

The group called the "Aborigenes" are the so-called "indigenous" group in Australia. Even your document calls them "indigenous". I say "so called" because they came to Australia just like everybody else.

Then, you declare "special rights that do not exist otherwise" and that they are "wrong".

I happen to believe in equality before the law. Do you?

More diluted babbling which in no way addresses the challenge I presented to Metaphor while I linked to a report which develops and expands on why the existence of Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights benefiting an indigenous group which can hardly be defined as "so called indigenous".

The whole premise of the special rights flies in the face of the principle of equal rights of everybody. And again, Aboriginals aren't indigenous in any real sense as they came to Australia from elsewhere in the same fashion European settlers did.

Let's cut to the chase. You believe certain ethnic groups deserve rights and privileges other people don't. I and (presumably) Methaphor believe in individual rights and equality before the law.

 

[SimpleDon]

I always imagined you as an old codger, that grew up before the civil and women's rights movement.

I always imagined you as an old codger who grew up throughout those movements.

I think individuals should have equal rights regardless of race, ethnicity or gender. But I think that also includes that there should be no "positive" discrimination in favor of certain races, ethnicities or gender because "positive" discrimination in favor of a group is always negative discrimination against another. Unfortunately the "civil and women's rights movements" you mention took a "wrong turn at Albuquerque" when so-called "modern liberals" abandoned the actually liberal values of individual rights and freedoms and substituted collectivism and group identity which spawned quite illiberal movements like "Black Power" and "Second Wave Feminism" and the unfortunately very successful movement to enshrine special rights for American Indians and other so-called "indigenous" groups into (in my opinion grossly unconstitutional) laws.
This thread is illustrative of this streak of group identity over individual values inherent in so-called "modern liberalism". Whites shouldn't play the blues because black group identity "owns" certain music genres which trumps individual white person's wish to play certain music. And of course, the same argumentation is not accepted for music genres developed by white people because some group identities are more equal than others.

To sum up, I think everybody who wants to pursue any type of music (or other artistic endeavor like dance) should by all means do so, regardless of their group membership. That is truly a liberal attitude.

Kind of off the rails to grind on a favorite axe. (** Nominee for worse use of mixed metaphors for the day.) You are assigning your favorite "special rights" to a discussion about the property rights of people to their culture.