The question - when placed on the other proverbial foot - is, according to the strictures of Political Correctness / Cultural Marxism / Frankfurt School, so absurd that no one would dare even ask it, not without fear of losing their job, or being ridiculed or ostracised by their peers, or possibly worse.
What a very strange place the world has become, compared to the one I was born into.
Absurd is the word. I've been all in on similar discussions but it's hard wasting yet more breath. I think everyone has an equal chance to be ridiculous or entertaining. Or both.
I don't know what world you were born into but Pat Boone was within earshot when I was tuning my musical ear. Obviously he was a successful entertainer but as a youngster I had to laugh. In retrospect his service to the cause of universal music can't be denied.
i think kudzurunner addressed this line of argument quite well in another thread. in brief: its not a meaningful comparison, and in my reading of the article which i guess has prompted the OP above, there is no suggestion the author considers white people cant play blues...but rather than start a new thread with an attention grabbing title, may be better to contribute to the current prominent discussion of the very same topic
Robert Cray's first influence as a guitarist was the Beatles and the Rolling Stone, not BB King or Albert Collins. Like a lot of white musicians who started with Clapton and Mayall and worked backwards to the Old School Masters in their efforts to forge their own voice, Cray went from an early infatuation with British Invasion rock guitar and learned who influenced them. Regardless of who he liked in the beginning, or who he continues to listen to as an adult, Cray is certainly a real blues man , a fine vocalist, as tasty, stylish guitarist.
For the purposes of this topic, it is a simple fact that no one in the academy (or the private sector) dares pose the question that suggests whites or blacks are inherently unable to convincingly play because fo the color of their skin and their cultural background.
Music is a great thing because it is able to transcend differences and create a joyful experience for the listener (and musician). The individual musician taking up a music not native to his or her cultural profile ought likewise be able to grow beyond the hard wired cosmology they've been indoctrinated in and create their own kind of glory in the music they seek to play, whether blues, country, jazz, classsical, gamelan, blue grass. That is the state art is supposed to produce. ---------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
Last Edited by ted burke on Jun 14, 2015 6:40 AM
I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make: it is not that the author considers white people can't play blues, but rather that there are some questions which will only be asked within a certain racial or cultural context, and that most people tip-toe around these questions, crapping themselves for fear of what may happen to them.
In the UK, and on a much more serious note, this has led to the authorities allowing some very bad things to happen, which is why the hypocritical double-standards of political correctness in general irk me so much, hence what you rightly refer to as the 'attention grabbing title'.
As for contributing to the other thread, I have to concede that you may be right, and this did indeed occur to me. However, 1) I simply didn't have the time to give 111 posts a close reading, and; 2) my point will no doubt be put across far more effectively by giving it its own thread.
@ kudzurunner:
Yes, apologies. I've not posted for about four years, so I should have re-read the forum creed. Will do so before my next post.
You can play the music and respect the culture it came from if you are not of that culture
I dont believe that classical music has a mono cultural origin like the blues has.
I dig Robert Cray but he has always struck me as more soul r and b style than deep blues. He always seems kinda coy in his delivery to me. But I guess thats splitting hairs.
A few years ago I was trying to add some Flamenco licks to my guitar style. A Spanish friend told me I could never understand Flamenco because i am American.
A few days later some friends and I went to watch a baseball game. I didnt invite the Spaniard even tho I know he loves baseball. When he saw me again he told me he was disappointed I didnt invite him to the ball game I told him a Spaniard could never understand baseball so why bother. He got the point
Anybody can practice any art form as long as you respect its spirit
Last Edited by Goldbrick on Jun 14, 2015 6:25 AM
Goldbrick, I think what you said above, "anybody can practice any art form as long as you respect its spirit," is the essential truth in this discussion as in the other related one. Well said. It applies to classical music and it applies to the blues. ---------- Phil Pennington
At the risk of splitting hairs myself, you are - depending on how much we are going to agree, or not, as the case may be, on the definition of 'mono cultural origin' - incorrect about classical music.
Its roots and conventions - e.g. forbidden parallel perfect fifths, restrictions on doubling the third, the leading-note rising to the tonic, how to resolve a tritone, etc, etc - are, in the main, wholly European, and not African, Asian, or AnyThingElsian; they grew out of conventions that date back to around 1000 AD, when monks were messing about with different voicings, and deciding that some of them sounded pretty crappy, while others didn't.
The only reason I labour the point is because far too often these days - and I'm not accusing you of this - white people, living in a globalised world, are far too ready to dismiss their own cultural origins, as in the case of some damned fool at the BBC putting a black lady in their production of Elizabethan Farm, which is right up there with the errant Coca Cola bottle in Ben-Hur, albeit entirely deliberate.
Classical music is, for most people, an acquired culturation. For folks of any race and of most cultural backgrounds, the distance between their everyday musical culture and classical art music is about the same.
Ain't nobody playin' Debussy's "Apres-midi d'un faun" down at the corner bar.
The blind man on the corner isn't often head singing operatic recitatives, let alone the arias that follow.
Out in the fields, one rarely (though regrettably) hears spontaneous outbursts of the Hallelujah chorus or fruit pickers humming Brahms' "Wie lieblich sind deine Wohnungen."
Same goes for the community swimming pool, wallpaper music at the mall, tailgate parties, Chinese New year celebrations, and so on. =========== Winslow
Failing the invention of an affordable time machine, it's safe to say that there is race that has truly experienced the classic 17th century. :) ---------- Ted Burke tburke4@san.rr.com
Why do commentators keep mentioning the 17th century (the century of later Shakespeare, Galileo, and Oliver Cromwell) when most of what we think of as classical music - and certainly the most familiar music from that repertoire - was composed in the 18th and 19th centuries? =========== Winslow
Uuuuuh. . . as the OP stated in his initial post (and explained further in later ones) the thread isn't truly about who can or can't play classical music. The headline postulated an absurd premise in order to illustrate the double standards and insidious nature of political correctness.
After reading the entire thread I think he made his point very effectively. ---------- Marr's Guitars
Offering custom-built Cigar Box Guitars for the discriminating player of obscure musical unstruments
I had an interesting insight in to cultural sensitivity about music a while back. At an open mike, I played the Bach/Gounod "Ave Maria". Someone commented to me afterwards that that was the first time they had ever applauded for the Ave Maria. Later on as I thought about this, I wondered If they were a bit offended by my playing what is commonly considered a sacred song, in a secular context.
I dunno if you can 'practice any art form respecting it's spirit'. Australian indigenous painting springs to mind. I mean, people from outside the culture could produce a painting in that style, but what meaning would it have?
Last Edited by SuperBee on Jun 14, 2015 3:15 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with whether your perceived station in the social pecking order. I think when you aren't on top you are more likely to make gradated observations about where everyone is. If you are on top, everyone is down. If you are on the bottom you try to differentiate yourself from the other people on the bottom. Poor white people try to differentiate themselves from the black community and the black community tries to differentiate themselves from 'white trash'.
It occurs to me, that when you feel insecure about your social position you become very aware of cultural signifiers. For instance, as crazy as it sounds, I have heard black people put down for playing white music. The catch is, it was by other black people. When hip-hop started crossing over to white kids it was often in well to do suburbs where treading on someone else's cultural identity really didn't have any consequences- it was just another way to rebel against their parents (and identify as youth, not old fogies.) I've heard white people put down white people (particularly hip hop) for being 'gangster' and violent (which much of it is, but the parents complaining probably listened to bands that 'worshipped the devil' at heavy metal concerts and turned out okay.)
I know people who could listen to R&B and hip hop and not be able to tell you which was which, but could tell you it was 'black' music. To them, it's not part of their group, so they tune it out.
STME58, I had a similar experience. My band used to cover Wayfaring Stranger. The verses we chose weren't particularly religious, but someone in the audience came up to me and asked if he was correct in assuming we were a very spiritual band. I had to explain that we were kind of a hodge podge. I've sung religious music in school choirs for years, but don't consider myself religious. Our singer and bass player (and the guy sitting in on drums) were/are evangelical and the guitar player, well, if he's religious one way or the other he's never said anything about it. I don't consider myself religious, but I've grown up with all sorts of references and influences that are. It's hard to communicate if you wall off a whole section of our shared cultural history as off limits.
Maybe there is something to that too. Yes, it's possible to swipe something someone else feels culturally is theirs, but if we don't, are we really even trying to talk the same language? If we build walled off gardens for each group, where do you draw the lines? There certainly are people who do it with bad intentions. You have the long tradition of minstrel shows as an example of what can happen to cultural appropriation when it goes to a bad place, but I don't think most white blues guys are doing that. They are doing it because they love it.
You understood me completely and homed in exactly on the point I was trying to make.
And, the point is not a trivial one, which is why it tasks me so much when I see it, or a hint of it coming up; it really has effected some people's lives in some very bad ways - not in who can or can't play what, but, rather, in the almost quasi-monotheistic nature of political correctness itself, which, by its very nature, is continuously hunting down its next transgressor, while completely ignoring the short-comings of its most recent ward.
The forum's creed - which, strangely, mentions Nationalism, but ignores its polar opposite of Communism, the death-toll of which makes the former look like a minor punch-up - makes me think that it would be imprudent of me to explain further.
@ kudzurunner:
Thank you for editing the title. In truth, I've only just noticed where the 'Edit' link is, which I'd completely forgotten about after my long absence.
Edit:
@ STME58 and Nate:
I had similar thing years ago when I was busking 'Amazing Grace'. A lady asked me if I was religious, and when I told her I wasn't she got really pissed off and gave me an apocalyptic ear-bashing. I still can't decide if her objection was valid.
Nevertheless, if I understand the non-issue of who can play whose secular music, it is a mistake to conflate that with religious music and its associated texts, which brings me back to the aforementioned forum creed, and reminds me that I shouldn't try to lead the conversation in that direction any further than I already am.
Last Edited by HarmonicaMick on Jun 14, 2015 6:03 PM
I'm not sure if the thread-title question offers anything like a realistic parallel with what it's clearly (and provocatively) responding to, which is Corey Harris's blog, "Can White People Play the Blues?"
A better parallel would be, "Can a German historian whose father was a Nazi write an accurate and believable history of the Holocaust?"
Or, "Should a German actress whose father was a Nazi offer for sale an audiobook version--where she's doing the reading--of 'The Diary of Anne Frank'"?
Your thoughts?
Last Edited by kudzurunner on Jun 14, 2015 6:44 PM
Kudzu: While the thread-title question does not compare realistically with the content of the Harris blog, I get the impression it's not intended to. The point is the wording of the headers themselves.
In the current climate, one would generally be considered appropriate for discussion ("Can White People Play the Blues"). The other would generally be considered, at best, culturally insensitive ("Can Black People Play Classical Music?). It's the phraseology itself that is the focus of the debate; why is one acceptable and one not?
I'm only been chiming in on this because, as a lifelong (working) freelance writer, I've watched PC issues grow from an annoyance - 25 years back - to a cultural trend that stifles language, communication, emotion, creativity and true meaning. As the editors get younger (and I get older) the problem worsens (just had a fight with one of those jr. execudroids last week). I often feel people are talking more and saying less . . . usually due to fear of negative repercussions (job loss, viral Twitter campaigns, a good ol' fashioned shunning, etc).
This is really Harmonica Mick's question to answer, but it's one of my very rare "raw nerve" topics. Thus, in regard to your questions (and I suspect, at some time and place, these examples have possibly occurred) let me throw in another 2 bits (or maybe 4).
"Can a German historian whose father was a Nazi write an accurate and believable history of the Holocaust?"
Sure . . . as long as it's an honest history, not revisionist or biased, and is factually accurate
Or, "Should a German actress whose father was a Nazi offer for sale an audiobook version--where she's doing the reading--of 'The Diary of Anne Frank'"?
Again, sure . . . assuming her intent was to make others aware of the truth (in this case, the ultimate evil that was Nazi Germany). Much of life is about intent and motive, and if the actress was operating from a baseline of compassion, there should be no harm.
Why should either of these people, or anyone else, be punished for the sins of their fathers (or grandfathers)? I've never understood that way of thinking. ---------- Marr's Guitars
Offering custom-built Cigar Box Guitars for the discriminating player of obscure musical unstruments
Last Edited by Rontana on Jun 14, 2015 8:21 PM
This video from the Dave Chappelle Show is a fun (and politically incorrect!) take on some of the issues being discussed in this and the related thread. I couldn't find the full skit on You Tube but the premise was an experiment to see which kind of music white people, black people and Hispanic people responded best to. From memory (it's been a while since I saw this on TV) there was a part before the bit in the video with white people really enjoying John's guitar playing and a bit after when Dave sums up the results of the experiment.
https://youtu.be/ZL4CL8gMuAo
Last Edited by Glass Harp Full on Jun 15, 2015 12:52 AM
In answer to your three questions: yes, yes (with one caveat, see below) and yes.
Curiously, each of the questions has the word 'just' in it, which, If I understand the subtleties of the English language, means that you do not approve of the thread's premise in the first place, or that you think it is pretty much a load of old rot.
With regard to the first and third questions, I can't possibly argue that to be the case with any certainty; with the second question, however, you include the phrase 'perceived loss' which strongly suggests that there is no such loss at all. And there's the caveat; rephrase the question to:
"... and you are actually just sounding off about a loss of the right to free speech?"
and I'd say an emphatic 'yes'.
There is absolutely no doubt that speech is not entirely free, and I don't think that any serious person would try to argue otherwise. They may well - and frequently do - try to justify this ever-stifling climate with one of several spurious arguments, but they don't try to pretend that one can say what one likes.
The most common argument I hear is the 'rights and responsibilities' chestnut, which usually has the imaginary movie-goer shouting 'Fire!' in order to cause a panic and, hopefully, a few trampled bodies in the process. Like many left-leaning arguments, it is a jingoistic device, based on a non-sequitur, which doesn't bare close scrutiny.
Expressing an opinion that some may find downright offensive is not comparable to using your larynx as a panic-inducing weapon. An opinion is just that, and can be taken for what it is, or simply ignored as the ramblings of a fool. However, shouting 'Fire!' at the movies is clearly not expressing an opinion - unless there really is a fire - but, rather, it is, or would have the same effect, as firing off a starter pistol at the ceiling.
@ Kudzurunner:
Rontana has answered the question posed to me - I presume - as well as I could have done - or probably better - and saved me an awful lot of typing and time in the process (don't these threads sometimes eat into your day more than you'd like?)
I would echo one thing that Rontana wrote, and expand on it a little, namely:
"but it's one of my very rare "raw nerve" topics."
That's how I also feel, which is why I posted the thread in the first place. There are far too many examples of people having their livelihood ruined by saying something that is simply not fashionable to say anymore, which may be a part of the lexicon they grew up with, and I get tired of having to remember the ever-growing list of proscribed words.
I used to use the word 'negro' without intending to cause any offense, until a black friend told me that it was offensive. At the time, I just sheepishly apologised. Now I think: it's offensive if you want it to be, or you've been taught it is, or you think I'm trying to cause offense, in which case, just ignore me for the ass I undoubtedly am, and move on until you find a decent human being.
I know you're going to present me with a history of the word, and why it's bad to use, but bare in mind that many people of our vintage, or thereabouts, grew up without deliberately attaching any malice to the word. Having said that, I expect that your perspective of the word is very different from mine: you grew up in the New York suburbs, whereas I grew up in leafy, picture-postcard Surrey, here in the UK.
In any case, that's just one word. Now I understand that I mustn't say Eskimo, but Inuit; Pygmy must be replaced by Forest People; bum - which is how I humorously referred to myself when I was homeless - is now street person. Even an innocuous word like 'problem' has been replaced with the nerve-jangling 'issue'.
Jim Lovell: Houston, we have an issue.
CAPCOM: Jim, from what my computer says, I'd say you have a f****** big problem.
Some of the proscriptions may be valid; many are not, and the older I get, the more it is that I tire of being told what to say and what not to say.
In an earlier post, I alluded to a much more serious effect that the PC cowards have had over on this side of the pond. However, due to the forum creed, I will not expand on that any further, nor will I be drawn into discussing it, as you no doubt would prefer; that is, if you can guess what I'm alluding to.
I'll finish this post - tick-tock - by referring you to a recent documentary that was aired over here in Blighty: Things We Won't Say About Race That Are True, written and presented by Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, an unelected and unaccountable government QUANGO, which later renamed itself to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
Here is the link, which I'm not sure won't be blocked where you are by the host server. If so, I expect it's on YouTube:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/things-we-wont-say-about-race-that-are-true
Last Edited by HarmonicaMick on Jun 15, 2015 8:49 AM
Joseph ScottJune 9, 2015 at 6:02 PM Corey wrote below: "If I play Bach, I don't need permission. But I won't get mad if the people in Vienna Austria tell me it is not the same thing!" Why not??
Joseph ScottJune 9, 2015 at 6:46 PM Suppose the people in Vienna wrote: "I have a question. Can black people perform Bach? Your answer depends on where you stand in the debate. Some people say that the culture of the performer (aka 'race') doesn't matter. It is obvious that this position serves black people well, opening the door wide open for anyone and everyone. Bach performed by a black person, such as Barbara Hendricks singing Bach's cantatas, may be great entertainment, but it can never be the same as when a European performs it. Why? Without culture there is no music. Music is the voice of a culture. Separate the two and the music can never be the same. Of course, it may be in the same style as the original (and of course we are all free to perform in whatever styles we enjoy performing), but the meaning of a piece by Bach will always be changed with a different performer. This is especially true if the performer is not from the White culture that gave birth to Bach." ----------
I've been a member of this forum for a couple months now. This is at least the 3rd time this topic has been brought up in that time.
If you want to play blues, then play it. If you feel cultural sensitivity toward the issue, then live your life accordingly. Must we rehash this every other week?
I'd happily bet a fiver that the last two contributors didn't read a single word of either my opening post, or any of those that followed. They only read the title, and, as such, have completely missed the point, which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not black folks can play classical music.
I don't think I can make my points any clearer, not, that is, without getting calluses on the ends of my fingers.
Jinx, as a white guy who only speaks the German I learned watching Hogan's Heroes as a kid do I really understand the culture of Bach?
Race is a skin color but it's also how and where we are brought up, and because we don't have the time to learn about every culture out there, aside maybe from being able to tell the difference between Thai, Japanese and Chinese cuisine most of us lump a bunch of diverse cultures together as Asian. We lump a bunch of diverse African cultures together, and if they are here in the U.S. we call them all black (or African-American, although that excludes non-Americans). White America has a little better handle, maybe, on what makes a French person (insert stereotype of a rude person with poor hygiene) from a Brit (snooty person with bad teeth) but even those stereotypes are a) not true, and b) have very little to do with how an American with French or British (or Dutch or Irish or whatever European ancestry you care to include) will act as a 3rd or 4th generation American.
Part of that is that in school we spend a lot of time on European history in school and that gives us a framework to fit ideas onto (while we largely ignore most African history, except maybe Egypt and Carthage).
And that's where the argument gets larger. I remember seeing parts of a debate by the people in charge, in Texas, of setting the school curriculum. The one lady was arguing that because we didn't teach about Mexican history when she was a kid it shouldn't be in the school books now. She was all for teaching that Texas was liberated from the evil Mexicans. There are two problems with that. First, it grossly oversimplifies, sanitizes and whitewashes the actual history, and second, it marginalizes all the kids reading that text whose ancestry comes from the other side.
I think, when you apply that to the blues, you have white society, which kept blacks as slaves and then oppressed them for further generations with Jim Crow, and the black society looking for the stories that are about them... when we white musicians appropriate that story without attribution it's just one more thing we've taken. Blues are, very much, the story of the black culture. Cultures intermix, but it's important that the story of their origins don't get whitewashed.
History is too big a subject to teach it all, and although it's based on facts and I'm not arguing for presenting things that aren't facts, but which stories you choose to put in the canon is important. I grew up hearing about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. That's almost certainly apocryphal so it probably shouldn't be in the textbooks anyway, but it's also an example of us choosing a very small 'fact' (again, probably not a fact) that doesn't have much to do with history and telling it as part of a morality play that features a white guy. Our history is more than white guys, but when we pick these stories, out of ignorance or malice, we pick a large selection of white guys. Cultural wars are fought over things like this. The idea of political correctness gets taken to crazy extremes. It's a pain to have to learn new words. In my lifetime I've seen black go to African-American (and then a pushback because that wasn't inclusive of people who weren't American.) I've seen handicapped go to disabled. I've seen my brother change his name from Kevin to his middle name Andrew. (Okay, I kept calling him Kevin for a long time because it drove him nuts) but eventually I changed because, really, if that's what he wants to be called who am I to say I won't just because I don't want to learn a new word or name.
Words change meanings. We learn new words all the time. Mail, a perfectly good word, split into snail mail and email. No one is terribly upset making the distinction. We get upset when someone takes offense at something we say and we tend to dig in our heels. Why? I learned oriental doesn't refer to Asians. It did when I was little, but because Asians were now in a position where their voice could be heard they were able to say, 'Excuse me, but that word doesn't describe us well. It refers to a particular region. It's like calling a Texan a New Yorker.' No big deal. I learned to use Asian.
Blues are part of the black heritage. We can choose what part of that story we tell. Do we focus on the original black performers, on the new white performers, the music, the cultural appropriation, do we focus on the individual stories or do we step back and teach it, perhaps in less depth, but as a whole story?
Do we at least have the discussion? Personally, I think it's fine for a white guy to play the blues or for a black person (or anyone who doesn't speak German) to perform Bach, as long as they do it with respect. I've seen things appropriated. I saw John Lennon's Imagine turned into a pizza song. It broke my heart. I was angry because it took a dump on the message of peace, something that I feel was important (although John Lennon is a complicated individual). I've also seen it covered in a minor key and found it electrifying and sad. One cover was crass commercialism and exploitation (on a small scale) and the other was an attempt at creating something new. I've also heard straight up covers that just try to pay homage.
As musicians there are a couple reasons to play. Sometimes you are playing to sooth a hole in you. If you are doing that you are almost certainly being honest anyway. Other times you are playing to perform. As a harp player that means picking a key, a position, figuring out what other instruments are involved, figuring out how to dress on stage, figuring out the arrangement... one of the things that is going to affect how the audience perceives you is race and history. You can go up and play and ignore that and still be successful, and I'm not saying to use it as a tool- you see politicians who change their accent depending on what city they are in- but part of a good performance is empathy. The more you can empathize with the audience the better you will be. Understanding where someone is coming from is a great life skill. Yeah, it's a pain to have to learn new words, and yes, sometimes those new words are spin. The same tools, words, that some people use to promote empathy can be used for terrible things too. Pretty soon you are talking about market corrections and bank foreclosures instead of 'people losing their savings' and 'people getting thrown out of their homes'. It's about intent. And that's tough, because intent is always hiding there, not quite in plain view which means we have to work to see it.
Play the blues. Play gospel. Play Bach. Do it for the right reasons, understanding what you are doing, and you should be fine.
I did read this thread and understand that it's meant to illustrate political correctness run amok.
I agree with you on that. I just don't see the need to rehash it again, when the point has been made on several other threads.
And if the point has not already been made to your satisfaction, it's my argument that it will never be, which again leads to questioning why this needs to be rehashed.
There was no reason to think that you'd read the thread, as your post had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the argument it was intended to posit, and, as such, contributed nothing that was actually relevant.
Furthermore, I am not rehashing anything. This is the first thread I've posted in about four years, so I have not seen this subject (Political Correctness) discussed.
The subject of which my title was a parody has been discussed ad nauseam since long before this forum existed, and I think it is a pointless debate which I don't care to engage in.
Edit:
As for your last sentence, are you seriously suggesting that I should curtail any further discussion of a topic - even if I had been present - simply because some of its possible outcomes have already been chewed over?
To my mind, that would be utterly preposterous. Much of the western model of left-leaning so-called liberal democracy has only been arrived at by endless repetition of certain ideas through the media, espoused by carbon-copy, identikit commentators who say exactly what they think they're meant to say, not what they actually think.
Am I not entitled to contradict their ideas and influences as often as they try to force them on me and everyone else?
Last Edited by HarmonicaMick on Jun 15, 2015 2:06 PM
Mick, you are reading the use of 'just' differently to how I think of it. In the 1st ? I used it because the thread may not be what it appears to be, and the title of the thread implies an attitude perhaps more controversial than your actual topic, which of course was intention. Like you pointed a gun and said stick em up...and then it was 'just' a prank. You really wanted to talk about how to cause fear, not actually harm me. Kinda thing. 'Perceived' not meaning doesn't exist. Meaning it's a bout your perception, rather than a proven thing. You are making a case for it, in your perception it's a real thing and you are alerting others, some of whom probably remain to be convinced. I've railed against this in the past also. I've changed the way I think about a lot of it I suspect. Some of the changes in my thinking have come about through exposure to different viewpoints and information garnered through this forum, believe it or not
This argument reminds me of the very same thing that's been happening in ballet, where ballet dancers have been 95% white and too often the stereotype is that blacks can't/wont do ballet and/or if they did attempt to do it, they're gonna suck at it, and then there's this black ballet dancer named Misty Copeland who is more than just peeing all over these stereotypes/misconceptions with a vengeance and she's top notch at it.
BTW, the late, great Ray Charles was also a clasically trained musician. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
Last Edited by barbequebob on Jun 16, 2015 10:49 AM
Just a note, because Rontana's link raises an interesting issue- one of the reasons both sides of the aisle fight for the words we choose is because words have power. It's a real thing, and it's taught in universities to students on both sides of the aisle.
The link is steeped in irony though, because it is doing exactly what it claims to be warning against. You can note the code words, like 'elites' where they try to distance themselves from the practice with scary warnings that someone might be plotting against you, and by mentioning fringe movements like transhumanism and whatever that thing is about singles rights (I'm pretty far left and have never heard of that one).
The point is, words have power, and language evolves. It sounds scary when you talk about 'elites' doing it, but when you boil it down to passionate people trying to persuade people to do what's right (or at least what they think is right) using good speech making you realize it's nothing new. Roman senators did the same thing 2000 years ago, and in the end, words are important because they represent ideas. It is absolutely important to understand the ideas rather than get swept up with the code words. For me what I think is right, is treating everyone equally, with respect. Sometimes that means I have to learn a new word for something because the old one is now considered offensive, but I can look at the reasons why and decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Is it because the old word has picked up baggage along the way? Fine, I'll switch words. It can be used the other way too though. You can use PR (an example of a 'bad word') to call someone an 'elite', which here is being used not to say they excel at something but that they aren't 'us' and suggest dark motives.
(And for the record, as goofy as it is, transhumanism is kind of interesting. We don't deny someone the right to vote if they've had a heart transplant. What if they've had part of their brain replaced? There are implants now that can treat multiple conditions, from implants that send light from sensors through nerves to the brain to help restore sight (in trials now, although it's really low pixel stuff) to implants that can interrupt problem signals in the brain for epilepsy, to things that might even change personality (there is an implant being used to treat OCD). That's now. In 50 years, what happens if you get an implant here and there and at some point people start to question exactly what it means to be human. If you upload your brain into a computer that has all your personality, and your body dies, does your computer brain get to vote? Does it get to decide to pull the plug on your vegetative body? That's the kind of crazy things transhumanists think about. I occasionally write short science fiction and it's sort of fun and useful to think about for science fiction, even if, in practice it's not practical or necessary right now and maybe is a little crazy. If people want to worry about that, that's their right, even if you and I may think it's bonkers. Not terribly scary stuff though, despite what the link suggests.)
"For me what I think is right, is treating everyone equally, with respect. Sometimes that means I have to learn a new word for something because the old one is now considered offensive, but I can look at the reasons why and decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
The trouble is that too often the old word isn't offensive at all. Rather, it simply doesn't fit in with the fanatical, far-left's notion of Equality - that wholly artificial, socially engineered myth that tries to use the power of the State - or the Elite, if you will - to make everyone the same. That is what 'Cultural Marxism' (see my opening post) is.
One example is the use of the word 'partner' to completely remove the notion of gender between adults who are dating each other.
And it's not just language that's part of the manipulation process either.
Here in the UK, since the 1960s, the education system has been progressively ruined by 'progressive' lefties in order to make everyone equal, albeit equally dumb.
In the 1960s, long before the Labour Party made the creation of new grammar schools illegal - because they can't stand selection on merit - more people went to Oxford and Cambridge from working-class backgrounds than do now.
I understand that America's education system is also in dire straits, though don't know enough to comment on that.
By the way, given your remarks about humans storing their memories in computers, and your interest in science fiction, you might be interested in Peter F. Hamilton's excellent novel 'Pandora's Start', though be warned, it's actually in two parts, the second of which is called 'Judas Unchained'.
Last Edited by HarmonicaMick on Jun 16, 2015 12:09 PM
REALLY !!!! I find these types of questions absolutely STUPID and insulting. haven't you got anything better to do with your time. Who cares what color any body is, or if they can play a certain type of music. do you lay awake at night thinking up this crap.
"One example is the use of the word 'partner' to completely remove the notion of gender between adults who are dating each other."
You're bothered by the fact that some people refer to their significant other as their partner? Seriously? Wow
What about the fact that some people refer to the harmonica as a harp? That must really keep you up at nights, huh?
EDIT: My god! I just noticed in the side bar that this forum is labeled the "BLUES HARP FORUM". Adam must be one of those scheming Cultural Marxists. Adam you nefarious bastard!
Last Edited by REM on Jun 16, 2015 2:47 PM
You're bothered by the fact that some people refer to their significant other as their partner? Seriously? Wow
I'm actually more bothered that some people use the phrase "significant other." Not because it's offensive . . . but because it sounds silly and signifies next-to-nothing.
Husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend, fiance, lover, mistress, paramour . . . there are countless words that actually describe this person. "Significant other" almost sounds passive-aggressive, as if a person really doesn't want to acknowledge a status.
That said, I could get behind "insignificant other." ---------- Marr's Guitars
Offering custom-built Cigar Box Guitars for the discriminating player of obscure musical unstruments
Actually I'm pretty sure it signifies that you're in a non-plutonic relationship with someone.
Non-plutonic? Does that mean your relationship isn't rocky? ---------- America's foremost Demotivational Speaker. Co-Founder of the Demotivational Organization of Missouri (D.O.O.M.)
Last Edited by Rontana on Jun 16, 2015 3:21 PM
You haven't made an argument against the point I made in my last post - not a bit of it. Rather, you've dismissed it with what - if we were face to face in a bar - would probably look like macho bluster.
For that matter, you've not offered a single argument against anything I've said throughout the entire thread.
Those who can argue will argue, while those who can't will simply mock. And mockery has always been the refuge of the foolish.
In any case, what I'm describing has been written about at great length and published by publishing houses - as opposed to vanity publishing - and is there for anyone who is interested in looking this stuff up.
What is it exactly that you are demanding I argue against?
All I did was point out that I think it's very bizarre that you have a problem with people calling someone they're in a relationship with their partner. Seriously, I don't get it.
And now somehow I'm obligated to argue against other points of yours? Are you just upset at my joking reference to Cultural Marxism? Because if that's the issue, I'll certainly explain why I think that term is deserving of mockery.
Last Edited by REM on Jun 16, 2015 3:58 PM
I'm demanding nothing - re-read my last post, or don't.
If you don't get it, then I don't know how else to explain it.
If you actually want to know more about PC, and how it is used to alter perception rather than truth, then you only have to spend half-an-hour on Google. Recent events in the UK must have exposed some of its darker side - hundreds of young girls who had their lives wrecked by its cowardly blindness.
If you don't want to know, then I don't know why are you bothering to contribute to the thread.
It's pretty clear from your post that you had an expectation that I should have been engaging in argument with you, but perhaps my intentionally hyperbolic use of the word "demand" was unfair.
"If you don't want to know, then I don't know why are you bothering to contribute to the thread."
I was commenting on a claim that you specifically made in this thread. Is that not sufficient reason to contribute?
If you wish to enlighten me about something, would you please explain to me how some people using the term "partner" is due to a liberal plot to institute "Cultural Marxism". I'm having trouble connecting the dots on that little conspiracy theory.
Last Edited by REM on Jun 16, 2015 5:16 PM
REM the dots are perfectly clear for those able to remove their liberal rose tints. It is obvious to those not indoctrinated into the plot, that it is not about some people using the term partner, it is about libs insistence that we all use the term partner.
@eebadeeb Please point me towards these dastardly liberals who are insisting we all use the term partner. You apparently think this is a wide spread problem, and yet I've never met a single person who's demanded that I only refer to the people I date as my partner.
EDIT: Rereading eebadeeb's post, I can't help but wonder if I've been a victim of Poe's Law :/
Last Edited by REM on Jun 16, 2015 9:24 PM
"yet I've never met a single person who's demanded that I only refer to the people I date as my partner"
Wait, I take it back slightly. There are in fact currently conservative politicians who think that, at best, my relationship should only be allowed to be legally called a domestic partnership. There are ones who don't even think I should be allowed that.
My point, again, is that both sides do it. I try to avoid doing it. I don't think I've done it in any of my posts, but it is often a matter of perspective. There are outlets on both sides, here in the U.S. we have Fox and MSNBC who both deliberately used charged language to get their base fired up. I try to use the word that people chose to call themselves by. That means liberal instead of commie-pinko and Tea Partier instead of Teabagger, and Pro-Life and Pro-Choice respectively. I try (I don't always succeed) to make those my rules of engagement.
It can be hard to discuss language without getting into the underlying policies, but since this is a harmonica forum lets do our best to keep it to at least harmonica politics. I've got lots of opinions on education policy, but I can't find even a tangential reason to discuss them here (except maybe railing against cutting funding for music education). ---------- Nate Facebook Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
