Rap music and white people

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Kind of/not really. I believe in dynamic social hierarchies.

Dynamic social hierarchies maintained by struggle and power, you mean?

 

[Vendrah]

If you watch the video Akala is very clear that cultural appropriation does not have to be treated racially or by placing hard boundaries and boxes on people. He talks about how he learns a Chinese martial art, but acknowledges its cultural source. This isn't about saying white people should not rap, and forcing it into that box is creating a strawman argument (I don't think you are doing that to the extreme many tend to do it). The actual position is completely reasonable and merely about respect and acknowledgment. That people fight against providing that comes across as extreme entitlement. If you write a paper and reference your sources, that is considered reasonable. At the larger cultural level there isn't necessarily one person to acknowledge, although sometimes there is, and there is always a cultural source to acknowledge.

The 'pattern' for cultural and race has some similarities in terms of choice and free will.
No one really chooses their race background and no one can really change it, sadly.
And also the same is about cultural background. I can't really quit my cultural background, but I am in no way attached to it because I don't identify and see myself in my own culture, I don't have a feeling that people from my own country are my own people.

This is not the same for authorship at all (cultural 'authorship' vs actual 'authorship').. Actually, the original authors (the ones that are actually people with blood, heart and brain) sometimes have their creation stolen by culture, some people should be the 'rap creators' yet we don't know them, they don't really have the respect. Just the so-called 'culture' does. The culture did appropriated from their creation in the first place.

But this cultural appropriation concept does a good job into trapping people inside their cultures because it will make me and lots of people an outsider wherever I go unless "my own culture". And there is a link between culture and race, so the rap culture is populated by majority of 'black' people, it is not the same because not all 'black' people are on the rap culture and there should be a minority of non-'blacks' (with some faith) that are not from the rap culture. And I had been already called a racist just because I don't like rap exactly because of that connection (I am not much found of Eminem either).

The issue raised in the video is that the music industry has given financial and promotional preference to some white rappers when the actual style comes from outside their culture. It isn't about not letting people of other races perform hip hop or rap, but to not overrun and supplant the original people.

This isn't as much an issue for causal listeners and fans. No one is saying that everyone shouldn't appreciate an art form. The only comment in that direction was about the use of the N word, which is more of a racism issue, but still worth discussing. I did share an article about that.

The N word should be a US thing because I have no idea of what that means...
But a friend of mine once told that if you get to US you shouldn't go out saying 'Yo!' if you are not black because they get offended (some people like saying "yo!" just to look cool or just to say something different than the usual hi & hello), but I really don't like that, but if I ever happened to be on the position I would avoid the 'Yo!' just for my own self-preservation.

But getting to the point, the main problem is exactly what I had said earlier: 'Black' people have in general less chances at the music and perhaps at arts in general (at the same way of non-north american people) because basically the 'whites' simply will completely taken over the departments. I don't think they are actually wrong into trying to block 'whites' from coming to rap, because at least the so-called "black people" will at least have one department where they have good chances. For example, although we got Pharrel Willians, outside these closed culture circles we don't get a band of people who look like Pharrel Willians in terms of skill colour, like a band full of 'black' people. Yet the 'music world' is very populated by bands where all members are 'white'. So having these 'niches' where whites are blocked to join are their way for getting a chance into having fame in the music world. The real problem is that the 'white people' always take over.

 

[anticlimatic]

Dynamic social hierarchies maintained by struggle and power, you mean?

Changed by struggle (even on a microscopic level, such as the aging process); maintained by inertia. Power is a factor, but it's dynamic in and of itself, measured only relatively, and far from the only player on the board.

 

[Jaguar]

Aerosmith, Run-DMC and the Story Behind Their Genre-Bending Hit "Walk This Way" - Biography

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Changed by struggle (even on a microscopic level, such as the aging process); maintained by inertia. Power is a factor, but it's dynamic in and of itself, measured only relatively, and far from the only player on the board.

Ah, ok, there's also the American values of hard work and self-reliance to consider, lol.

 

[anticlimatic]

Ah, ok, there's also the American values of hard work and self-reliance to consider, lol.

Hard work is a mostly universal value, self reliance also has a lot more to it than a power struggle. You can choose to look at anything/everything through a bevy of lenses, just remember there are a bevy of them, and any singular obsession with one might not be healthy.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Hard work is a mostly universal value, self reliance also has a lot more to it than a power struggle. You can choose to look at anything/everything through a bevy of lenses, just remember there are a bevy of them, and any singular obsession with one might not be healthy.

Self-reliance is not really a value that governs American society. Those at the top are perfectly content to receive government handouts when they need or even want them. I don't really know what the day to day schedules of those folks look like, so I can't speak to hard work, but one need only look at the stimulus bill to see how much American captains of industry value self-reliance.

It's not really from "each according to his ability, to each according to his ability."

 

[anticlimatic]

Self-reliance is not really a value that governs American society. Those at the top are perfectly content to receive government handouts when they need or even want them. I don't really know what the day to day schedules of those folks look like, so I can't speak to hard work, but one need only look at the stimulus bill to see how much American captains of industry value self-reliance.

It's not really from "each according to his ability, to each according to his ability."

Do you mean "to each according to his needs" per the Marx quote, or were you making it your own here to sum up the fairness of government distribution?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Do you mean "to each according to his needs" per the Marx quote, or were you making it your own here to sum up the fairness of government distribution?

I was describing the way people claim the system works now (by cheekily referencing Marx) when they make arguments against why it shouldn't be changed. My chief issue with those arguments is that they don't reflect how it actually works! They're opposing change to preserve something that doesn't actually exist.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So the relevant question is, why has Congress decided to enact the stimulus the way they have?

Give me a reason that doesn't involve those with the most power and influence having a stronger voice in the legislative process.

 

[anticlimatic]

I was describing the way people claim the system works now (by cheekily referencing Marx) when they make arguments against why it shouldn't be changed. My chief issue with those arguments is that they don't reflect how it actually works! They're opposing change to preserve something that doesn't actually exist.

I thought so, just wanted to check.

I get your point and am not someone who thinks the system works like that, or is fair. If we are talking about changing things by changing the way we look at them, specifically by adopting the marxist lens of power struggles combined with modern identity politics, it's a matter of the proposed solution being worse than the flawed system that currently exists.

To me, it seems like waking up one day with the realization that my vehicle would be so much better if only the tires could rotate 45 degrees with the push of a button, so I could strafe parallel park- even though I know nothing about vehicles other than the long history of that being tried, but never working- then proceeding to tear my car apart in my front yard to try making it work for myself. And there in the yard it would inevitably sit, forever. Broken and useless.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I thought so, just wanted to check.

I get your point and am not someone who thinks the system works like that, or is fair. If we are talking about changing things by changing the way we look at them, specifically by adopting the marxist lens of power struggles combined with modern identity politics, it's a matter of the proposed solution being worse than the flawed system that currently exists.

To me, it seems like waking up one day with the realization that my vehicle would be so much better if only the tires could rotate 45 degrees with the push of a button, so I could strafe parallel park- even though I know nothing about vehicles other than the long history of that being tried, but never working- then proceeding to tear my car apart in my front yard to try making it work for myself. And there in the yard it would inevitably sit, forever. Broken and useless.

My issue is I don't see most politicians wanting to do anything about any of it. I have to ask myself why that is. The only people who want to do anything about it are socialists. Most of the other politicians fight them tooth and nail without offering alternatives.

 

[anticlimatic]

My issue is I don't see most politicians wanting to do anything about any of it. I have to ask myself why that is. The only people who want to do anything about it are socialists. Most of the other politicians fight them tooth and nail without offering alternatives.

Socialism is the alternative offered, and it's a case too weak, too ill proven, and too radical to meet any reasonable common sense standard as something "better" that what we currently have. So it's not an offer that's going to be taken willingly. It will have to be crammed down in an authoritarian fashion, which is currently on the docket, but I'm not sure how successful that will be.

Everyone wants to do something about it, or rather everyone wants to see something done about it- but the swamp knows how to defend itself quite well. Socialists seem like they're in a position to do something about it because of their energy- which is really just a product of how important politics is to them, relative to other aspects of their lives, (relative to people of more moderate political leanings- aka, the majority), but the catch 22 is that the very act of being in such an impassioned cult is that it divorces a person from other interests, attributes, and priorities that the majority of people in the country possess- family, career, hobbies, religion, etc- so it doesn't understand the people it's trying to help.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Socialism is the alternative offered, and it's a case too weak, too ill proven, and too radical to meet any reasonable common sense standard as something "better" that what we currently have. So it's not an offer that's going to be taken willingly. It will have to be crammed down in an authoritarian fashion, which is currently on the docket, but I'm not sure how successful that will be.

What is authoritarian about medicare for all to anyone except health insurance companies?

Everyone wants to do something about it, or rather everyone wants to see something done about it- but the swamp knows how to defend itself quite well. Socialists seem like they're in a position to do something about it because of their energy- which is really just a product of how important politics is to them, relative to other aspects of their lives, (relative to people of more moderate political leanings- aka, the majority), but the catch 22 is that the very act of being in such an impassioned cult is that it divorces a person from other interests, attributes, and priorities that the majority of people in the country possess- family, career, hobbies, religion, etc- so it doesn't understand the people it's trying to help.

That doesn't really seem true from the ones I've met.

 

[anticlimatic]

What is authoritarian about medicare for all to anyone except health insurance companies?

Nothing in particular, the implementation of it would just have to be crammed down in an authoritarian fashion as part of the socialist "bundle" since it's hard to reach an easy consensus, especially when things we kind of don't like get bundled into things we feel might end the world. Unless a good case can be made for it- like weed legalization made- then maybe we can get Medicare for all safely and organically.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Nothing in particular, the implementation of it would just have to be crammed down in an authoritarian fashion as part of the socialist "bundle" since it's hard to reach an easy consensus, especially when things we kind of don't like get bundled into things we feel might end the world. Unless a good case can be made for it- like weed legalization made- then maybe we can get Medicare for all safely and organically.

What do you mean by a socialist "bundle"? You mean a bill in Congress with riders attached?


Good point about weed legalization, though. Twenty years ago that was considered radical and ill-proven.

 

[anticlimatic]

What do you mean by a socialist "bundle"? You mean a bill in Congress with riders attached?


Good point about weed legalization, though. Twenty years ago that was considered radical and ill-proven.

I just mean that if ever there's an opportunity to do it in the near future, since so many currently oppose it, it would require a level of overriding power and authority that could and would affect other even less palatable changes and policies along side of it- much like a bill with riders attached, but more like a government with policies attached.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I just mean that if ever there's an opportunity to do it in the near future, since so many currently oppose it, it would require a level of overriding power and authority that could and would affect other even less palatable changes and policies along side of it- much like a bill with riders attached, but more like a government with policies attached.

This doesn't make sense, unless you are talking about how it would affect health insurance companies.

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Mole]

The purpose of low culture is to demoralise the high culture of the West.

So the purpose of Rap is to demoralise Classical, click https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz5jXwOXgKQ.

The fruits of low culture are narcissism and depression. While the fruits of high culture are the Western Enlightenment, and the literate individual.

So low culture is cool, and high culture is passe.