Cultural appropriation and covers

[Dankology]

31 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

How far do we take this though? Are people who meditate, practice yoga or become buddhist guilty of cultural appropriation?

 

Are Indian cricketers that enjoy a nice cup of tea and a crisp ironed shirt and brogues culturally appropriating.

 

How about Bangalore call centre workers in Nike TNs, baseball caps and Jay Z T Shirts? How about if they form a rap group?

 

 

 

I'm not sure this is as confusing as you seem to find it.

 

Cultures bleed into and enrich each other - this is a good thing. Taking ("appropriating") an element of another culture in order to suggest a shared experience that may not exist introduces the risk of looking insensitive or cynical.

 

Much as you yourself alluded to above: it's a matter of intent and sensitivity to the subject matter.

[tegs07]

45 minutes ago, Dankology said:

I'm not sure this is as confusing as you seem to find it.

 

Cultures bleed into and enrich each other - this is a good thing. Taking ("appropriating") an element of another culture in order to suggest a shared experience that may not exist introduces the risk of looking insensitive or cynical.

 

Much as you yourself alluded to above: it's a matter of intent and sensitivity to the subject matter.

I don’t find it confusing at all. If something inspires you and gives your life meaning go for it. If you are doing it with sincerity I don’t think it’s anybody else’s business to judge. I always got the impression George Harrison was profoundly moved by his experiences in India and had a genuine love for the country and the music. He did things his way. The only way to do things.

Edited 18 hours ago by tegs07

[steantval]

I have always played in cover bands and I cannot recall anytime when a song has been rejected by any of the members due to any of the reasons mentioned throughout this thread, if it’s a great song and we feel we can do it justice, then it’s in the set.

We do not put every song suggested through a microscope and we certainly feel no need to offer the audience a trigger warning before playing specific songs, we play live to entertain an audience and enjoy ourselves while doing it.

[Stub Mandrel]

3 hours ago, Agent 00Soul said:

Having said that, I think that something like George Harrison's (and Kula Shaker's) take on Indian music, which was considered very respectful in their time, would have to be presented differently if created today.

 

Given that George Harrison sought the tutelage of Ravi Shankar, I don't think anyone could call it appropriation, it was more of a gift to him

[Stub Mandrel]

3 hours ago, tegs07 said:

How far do we take this though? Are people who meditate, practice yoga or become buddhist guilty of cultural appropriation?

 

Are Indian cricketers that enjoy a nice cup of tea and a crisp ironed shirt and brogues culturally appropriating.

 

How about Bangalore call centre workers in Nike TNs, baseball caps and Jay Z T Shirts? How about if they form a rap group?

 

 

 

 

Good point. I was taught a martial art by a Malaysian Master and his student. It has Chinese, Korean, Okinawan and Japanese roots (see here https://tangsoudao.com/history-and-background/) but the style was actually developed in the UK. Read that link, it's a massive history of cultural appropriation in the Far East, if you want to take it that way.

[Burns-bass]

49 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

Given that George Harrison sought the tutelage of Ravi Shankar, I don't think anyone could call it appropriation, it was more of a gift to him

The Beatles (as a group and as individuals) did massive amount to support musicians from all cultures. I think they were widely liked and respected. (Although Lennon was apparently quite a challenging character.)

 

My brother and I watched Live and Let Die today. Probably the best Bond film and certainly the best soundtrack, but some questionable portrayals of different cultures.

[tegs07]

8 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

My

 

8 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

My brother and I watched Live and Let Die today. Probably the best Bond film and certainly the best soundtrack, but some questionable portrayals of different cultures.

Try watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom again!

 

I lasted about 20 minutes. Shocking.

[Agent 00Soul]

16 hours ago, tegs07 said:

How far do we take this though? Are people who meditate, practice yoga or become buddhist guilty of cultural appropriation?

 

Are Indian cricketers that enjoy a nice cup of tea and a crisp ironed shirt and brogues culturally appropriating.

 

How about Bangalore call centre workers in Nike TNs, baseball caps and Jay Z T Shirts? How about if they form a rap group?

 

 

 

 

Yup - it's tricky. This intersects in my day job all the time so I encounter it lots.  For these specific examples:

 

Ex 1: Yes, it definitely could by some because you have the dominant group - in this case white people who come from the colonial powers - picking and choosing elements of the colonised culture.  The Beatles in India with the Maharishi would be a great example.  UK comedian Nish Kumar makes fun of stuff like this all the time.

 

Ex 2: No because the colonised are claiming the rituals of the coloniser.

 

Ex 3: For the left: no partially because of the the same reason as ex 2, and partially because rap music and fashion comes from an oppressed group, the African-Americans.  The issue becomes when middle class white guys do it.  But then what about the Beastie Boys who were the children of well-known Jewish intellectuals and obviously have so much talent that they get a cultural free pass?  Or Eminem, another huge talent who comes from the same background as most black hip-hop artists.  Also: so influential that he too gets a pass.  For the right: yes because their view of modern cultural thought is that white people, especially white males, are themselves an identity group under siege on all sides.  Leaders around the western world have rallied to this cause and we saw 100,000 - 150,000 in London last week and to some of them it is an existential crisis hence the "Great Replacement Theory".  "Political correctness gone mad," "censorship by the left," and "too woke" are common complaints from people on the right. Also, Brooklyn's Adam Yauch Park - named after the Beastie's MCA - is constantly being graffitied with swastikas and Yauch himself was a practicing Buddhist.

 

You see what a Gordian Knot this is?

 

A basic tactic that tends to work with 85% of the population:

1) Don't punch down, only punch up.  (Although that got Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel cancelled and sent the MAGA faithful on a McCarthy - or should I say McKirky - purge of progressives in the US when they punched up.  So this might not work any more.)

2) Be respectful.  If you are clear that you are doing something with respect, not parody, almost everyone sensible will accept it.  For now anyway.

 

If these are annoying to you, don't shoot the messenger; I'm not saying that I agree with these.  I am just trying to give examples that I have encountered in the professional world.  I will say that all this is incredibly had for musicians.  Music has always been a sponge that relies upon being influenced by anything.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Agent 00Soul
grammah & spellink

[tegs07]

8 minutes ago, Agent 00Soul said:

 

Yup - it's tricky. This intersects in my day job all the time so I encounter it lots.  For these specific examples:

 

Ex 1: Yes, it definitely could by some because you have the dominant group - in this case white people who come from the colonial powers - picking and choosing elements of the colonised culture.  The Beatles in India with the Maharishi would be a great example.  UK comedian Nish Kumar makes fun of stuff like this all the time.

 

Ex 2: No because the colonised are claiming the rituals of the coloniser.

 

Ex 3: For the left: no partially because of the the same reason as ex 2, and partially because rap music and fashion comes from an oppressed group, the African-Americans.  The issue becomes when middle class white guys do it.  But then what about the Beastie Boys who were the children of well-known Jewish intellectuals and obviously have so much talent that they get a cultural free pass?  Or Eminem, another huge talent who comes from the same background as most black hip-hop artists.  Also: so influential that he too gets a pass.  For the right: yes because their view of modern cultural thought is that white people, especially white males, are themselves an identity group under siege on all sides.  Leaders around the western world have rallied to this cause and we saw 100,000 - 150,000 in London last week and to some it is an existential crisis hence the "Great Replacement Theory".  "Political correctness gone mad," "censorship by the left," and "too woke" are common complaints from people on the right. Also, Brooklyn's Adam Yauch Park - named after the Beasties MCA - is constantly being graffitied with swastikas and Yauch himself was a practicing Buddhist.

 

You see what a Gordian Knot this is?

 

A basic tactic that tends to work with 85% of the population:

1) Don't punch down, only punch up.  (Although that got Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel cancelled and created sent the MAGA faithful on a McCarthy - or should I say - McKirky - purge of progressives in the US when they punched up.  So this might not work any more.)

2) Be respectful.  If you are clear that you are doing something with respect, not parody, almost everyone will accept it.  For now anyway.

 

If these are annoying to you, don't shoot the messenger; I'm not saying that I agree with these.  I am just trying to give examples that I have encountered in the professional world.  I will say that all this is incredibly had for musicians.  Music has always been a sponge that relies upon being influenced by anything.

My take on all this is the world is divided into 3 groups. Those who rely on income, those living at a subsistence level and those who have wealth and live via extracted rents. This is inter continental and occurs across all races, religions and cultures.

 

The more time people spend getting polarised and dividing themselves into sub-groups with infighting and division the faster the rent extraction group grows and the more people are pushed into the subsistence class.

 

We are entering a new era and it’s time to bury the old narratives and work together to maintain some semblance of economic independence.

Edited 3 hours ago by tegs07

[Agent 00Soul]

1 minute ago, tegs07 said:

We are entering a new era and it’s time to bury the old narratives and work together to maintain some semblance of economic independence.

 

I don't think that's the narrative anymore in the western world, whether it's accurate or not.

[tegs07]

1 hour ago, Agent 00Soul said:

 

I don't think that's the narrative anymore in the western world, whether it's accurate or not.

Well I guess good luck to you all. The blue print is taking shape across the Atlantic. MAGA vs Antifa with troops on the streets. What could possibly go wrong?

 

I hope you all have a road map with a potential exit strategy if it’s required.

 

Edit: Be respectful.  If you are clear that you are doing something with respect, not parody, almost everyone sensible will accept it.  For now anyway.

 

Totally agree with this one. I would also add prioritise what you have in common with your supposed adversaries and don’t trust anyone who offers no solutions other than to blame others.

 

I would also say that the western world needs to pull its head out of its backside and realise it is falling apart and being leap frogged. Alternatively we can keep up the delusion and self flagellation and just decompose from within. India has certainly moved far from being a colonial nation. It’s economically in better shape than the UK and doesn’t need to be protected or patronised.

 

The idea that middle class university educated call centre workers in Bangalore have anything in common with inner city rap culture is just absurd. If they dig the music or style though then they have as much right to get involved as their UK born counterparts.

Edited 1 hour ago by tegs07

[MacDaddy]

43 minutes ago, Agent 00Soul said:

Don't punch down, only punch up. 

 

TLDR: that isn’t equality, it’s noblesse oblige in progressive clothes.

 

 

Ah, “punching down.” That ghastly little phrase, which sounds less like a moral framework and more like an instruction one might find in an IKEA manual for assembling an oddly-shaped ottoman. The idea, if you’ll allow me to paraphrase it badly, is that comedians should never make jokes at the expense of those with less power or lower status. Very noble. Very high-minded. Very - how do I put this delicately? - patronising in the extreme. We’re being told who counts as “up” and who’s stuck “down.” That isn’t equality, it’s a hierarchy disguised as virtue, and the moment you divide people like that, you’ve abandoned the very principle of treating everyone as equals.

And here’s the obvious truth: people are equal regardless of job, money, or social status. A duke and a dustman may move in different worlds, but both are flawed, both ridiculous, both capable of laughter. To declare one “fair game” and the other “off limits” is to recreate the very divisions equality claims to abolish. Shielding people from humour doesn’t honour them; it quietly marks them out as lesser, as fragile, needing special treatment.

I’ve met, in my time, any number of the allegedly powerless, and I’ll tell you what: many are sharper, wittier, and far more capable of puncturing pomposity than the self-appointed guardians of their honour. To exclude them from the rough-and-tumble of humour is to infantilise them. Shielding some groups from jokes doesn’t respect them, it sidelines them. It’s not kindness; it’s exclusion in a sanctimonious mask

. 

[Agent 00Soul]

1 hour ago, MacDaddy said:

 

TLDR: that isn’t equality, it’s noblesse oblige in progressive clothes.

 

 

Ah, “punching down.” That ghastly little phrase, which sounds less like a moral framework and more like an instruction one might find in an IKEA manual for assembling an oddly-shaped ottoman. The idea, if you’ll allow me to paraphrase it badly, is that comedians should never make jokes at the expense of those with less power or lower status. Very noble. Very high-minded. Very - how do I put this delicately? - patronising in the extreme. We’re being told who counts as “up” and who’s stuck “down.” That isn’t equality, it’s a hierarchy disguised as virtue, and the moment you divide people like that, you’ve abandoned the very principle of treating everyone as equals.

And here’s the obvious truth: people are equal regardless of job, money, or social status. A duke and a dustman may move in different worlds, but both are flawed, both ridiculous, both capable of laughter. To declare one “fair game” and the other “off limits” is to recreate the very divisions equality claims to abolish. Shielding people from humour doesn’t honour them; it quietly marks them out as lesser, as fragile, needing special treatment.

I’ve met, in my time, any number of the allegedly powerless, and I’ll tell you what: many are sharper, wittier, and far more capable of puncturing pomposity than the self-appointed guardians of their honour. To exclude them from the rough-and-tumble of humour is to infantilise them. Shielding some groups from jokes doesn’t respect them, it sidelines them. It’s not kindness; it’s exclusion in a sanctimonious mask

. 

 

Doesn't matter.  That's not what our corporate policy is.  I'm 57 and I remember when arguments like this were mainstream and considered perfectly reasonable.  They aren't anymore, at least by the all important 18-34 demographic.  You can care or not care, but it is what it is.

 

If I, as a resident of Chelsea, made fun of the people in a slum, that's punching down no matter how they may outclass me personally.  If they made fun of me, then it's punching up and is acceptable to society.  Maybe it won't be someday, but it is now and is certainly how we view these things at work.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Agent 00Soul

[tegs07]

5 minutes ago, Agent 00Soul said:

 

Doesn't matter.  That's not what our corporate policy is.  I'm 57 and I remember when arguments like this were mainstream and considered perfectly reasonable.  They aren't anymore, at least by the all important 18-34 demographic.  You can care or not care, but it is what it is.

 

I have to say that the 18-34 year old demographic is in a very precarious situation. If anyone needs to wake up and smell the coffee it’s that demographic. Modern day techno serfdom is tantalisingly close.

 

The idea that corporate culture pays anything other than lip service to their values is also faintly ridiculous to me. The moment that the tide changes so will corporate culture.

[Agent 00Soul]

1 hour ago, tegs07 said:

The idea that corporate culture pays anything other than lip service to their values is also faintly ridiculous to me. The moment that the tide changes so will corporate culture.

 

100%, but that's the gig.  The thread is about cultural appropriation and I tried to explain my experiences with it in the workplace.

 

Edited 16 minutes ago by Agent 00Soul

[tegs07]

8 minutes ago, Agent 00Soul said:

 

100%, but that's the gig.  The thread is about cultural appropriation and I tried to explain my experiences with it in the workplace.

 

Definitely and I appreciate your insight. Personally I am not particularly active on social media and would not talk about this stuff with friends and particularly not with certain family members 😱

So I read comments on BC, the company intranet and BBC news pages to get some perspective about what people think and what they prioritise.

 

I find it very useful to try and second guess the direction of travel. It appears to be off a cliff 🙂