• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After Bruno Mars is accused of cultural appropriation, black celebrities come to his defense

One cannot be an artist and take claims of cultural appropriation seriously at all.
The very notion that cultural appropriation is a sin in ANY art form is the height of absurdity, as art is a cultural expression and is cultural food for the soul.
Segregating art into cultural cubicles is the surest guarantee of stagnation.
Those who run around screaming about cultural appropriation are malcontents who cannot create.
Purity is the kiss of death, in art, music, literature, cuisine, decor, fashion, economics, even philosophy and spirituality...and where genetics is concerned, purity is the bringer of birth defects and profound mental retardation.
That should give you a pretty solid idea of what Nature thinks of purity.
 
Okay, I just read 3 pages on this thread.

I still can not muster up one single "give-a-****."

I tried.

Adios y'all.
 
"Cultural appropriation" can get bent, for all I care. It's absolute nonsense. The practice has been around for so long and it's good. It's what we want. It is the "melting pot".
So because people have done something for a long time, it's acceptable? Seems odd.

I might add that the "Melting Pot" is... a bit of a platitude. Not everyone wants a homogenized culture, nor is that the only or necessarily best way to run a multi-ethnic society.


Chicago blues appropriated Delta blues appropriated Robert Johnson. 40-50s blues appropriated that; Spann, Dixon, Wolf, etc etc etc ETC etc etc. Then came Berry and others. The Rolling Stones and so many other English/American white bands appropriated them. Then came Zeppelin, Sabbath. Along came the prog guys who blended blues, appropriated blues, early US rock, and lots of acid. And on and on and on and on it went. It's all one big mix of appropriation, and that's just American-British music.
"Just?" Seems like a bit of a *cough* whitewash of cultural history.

Chicago blues musicians didn't "appropriate" Delta blues, as they were part of the same culture -- musicians participated in the Great Migration, too. The Rolling Stones had a deep and long-standing respect for their blues predecessors, yet they were not part of the same culture -- and that's part of what fascinated them about the music. That particular cultural quirk also helped fuel their reputation as "Bad Boys." Long before their own compositional strengths were developed, they gained incredible fame, wealth and prestige while their influences were largely mired in poverty, while they were blocked from mainstream success by racism.

One problem is the social imbalances. Did Muddy Waters benefit as much artistically from the Rolling Stones, as the Stones did from Waters? When the Stones played with Muddy Waters, it was a gesture of respect -- or was it an attempt to burnish their blues credentials -- or both? Did the domination of blues music by drugged-out whites have no effect whatsoever on the original blues culture?

Another is that cultural appropriations license or foment other racial issues. One example is the "White Savior Complex," where the Great White (Male) Hero is dropped into another culture, and saves the day! when often the character of those social interactions can be devastating for the non-white culture.

Related to that impulse is the way that appropriation treats the originating culture as a type of exoticism, which trivializes the culture. Do you understand life in the Mississippi Delta, because you've listened to Clapton's version of "Crossroad Blues?" White musicians understood that Jimi Hendrix drew from the blues in a way they did not, and respected him -- but many of his audience treated him like a freak show (a tendency not helped by his early emphasis on showmanship).

This is not to say "it's all negative." Rather, it's that the situation is incredibly complex, and often includes far more downsides and insult than we usually assume -- especially for those on the winning side of the equation.


Did I say melting pot? Christmas is appropriation.
How well did that work out for the pagans? :D


tl;dr, I have not seen one single instance of claimed appropriation that caused me to say "yup, that's bad, how dare you claim that for your own" when it comes to some kind of artistry.
You sure about that...?



jazz-singer-03-gty-jef-171002_12x5_992.jpg


MV5BMzkyNzQ1Mzc0NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODg3MzUzMw@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg


watch


why-native-headdresses-no-longer-belong-at-music-festivals-1422361730103.jpg
 
Blah blah blah....bull****. Answer the question. Which black artist was deprived the opportunity for success because Bruno Mars makes successful music?
I've already answered your question. It's not my problem if you fail to understand the answer.
 
This kind of **** proves to me that we have transcended racism as a 'problem' and that racism remains as little more than a pathetic cause.
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/12/ente...ltural-appropriation-reaction-trnd/index.html



The contortions some in the black community will make in order to be offended is mindboggling.

"Cultural appropriation?" Are you effing kidding me?

Nope, the "New Rules" are:

  1. Men cannot perform any works created by women;
  2. "Whites" cannot perform any works created by "non-Whites";
  3. People of "European extraction" cannot perform works by people of "non-European extraction";
  4. "Christians" cannot perform works created by "non-Christians";
  5. "Straights" cannot perform works created by "non-Straights"; and
  6. People of one generation cannot perform works created by people of a different generation.

There may well be other categories, but those are the basic ones.
 
A close friend of mine works for Bruno Mars, it's a crock of whiney people who can't create anything artistic themselves.

SmokeyBrunoMars2.jpg

He's a fashion designer, so I guess his work is almost 100 percent appropriation of something, because that's what fashion is all about.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/12/ente...ltural-appropriation-reaction-trnd/index.html



The contortions some in the black community will make in order to be offended is mindboggling.

"Cultural appropriation?" Are you effing kidding me?

Dang! I had two firsts today. I agreed with OpportunityCost. Now I'm agreeing with you. I must be losing my mind or growing soft.

Seriously, though, people who know Hawai'i better than a honeymoon or a weeklong tanning trip understand that it is one of the most culturally diverse places on the planet. Musical influences from every corner of the world have not only created a unique, syncopated local music genre that is unique to the islands but have also encouraged crossover and collaborations between just about any musical style you can name. The racial ambiguities in Hawai'i are also incomprehensible to anyone who has never lived there.

Mars did not appropriate any culture. He's celebrating and expressing his own.
 
This kind of **** proves to me that we have transcended racism as a 'problem' and that racism remains as little more than a pathetic cause.

Seriously. Who has time to concern themselves about this kind of crap? Listen to it...dont listen to it...who cares? What IS black music these days? Rock? Country? Is everyone supposed to fit in their own little tiny box?

You'll notice that I agree with the OP and that I also still dismiss white, American idiots when they tell everyone else that racism is over.
 
Cultural appropriation is what America was built on. Embrace it.
It was also based on stealing land from and slaughtering Native Americans. Yay?


No one complained when Hooty and the Blowfish "appropriated" what many would consider white music.
1) "Hootie"

2) Terrible example. The frat-boy quasi-folk rock that Hootie played was, in fact, largely appropriated from black music decades earlier -- early R&B, "race records," blues, early folk and so forth. Darius Rucker, the lead singer (and only black member of the band), often faced racism during that phase of his career.

3) Rucker turned to country music, another bastion of white musicians -- whose origins are a direct result of appropriation linked to racism. Blacks were subject to intense segregation in the 20s, and whites who liked "hillbilly music" and blues played mostly (though not exclusively) by blacks knew a good thing when they heard it. Similar to rock in the 50s, they took the music and ran with it. Granted, they didn't have much choice; mixed-race bands were not an option. Anyway, with access to broader markets and better radio exposure, they were more successful, and a new genre was born.

While Rucker is a very successful country musician, and no mainstream publication would dare call him out on race, not everyone is quite so color-blind. He still routinely faces racism, though he rarely reacts to or comments on it.

That kind of treatment and expectation -- "why is that black musician playing our music?" -- has happened over and over in rock and pop history (Hendrix, Living Colour, HR, Prince, Michael Jackson, etc), and is at least in part a consequence of process of appropriation. Domination of rock by whites was so thorough that it didn't make sense for black musicians to play what was historically black music.


Good art is good art regardless of who's making it or what supposed race they're labeled.
Okay, but... what is the criteria here for "good art?"

Is Eric Clapton's cover of "Cross Road Blues" good or bad? What makes it good or bad? Does it get better or worse when he performs it with a reggae feel? Is it better than the original?

What's happening in the Cream versions? I for one don't get anything like the feel of the original; I can't imagine Clapton in 1968, in the middle of the Delta, at his wit's end, begging God for mercy. Is Clapton paying homage to a man he openly recognized as a great blues musician and composer? Is he sharing a great song with the audience? Is he signaling a deep knowledge of the blues? Is the band using it as a platform to display their chops? Is it all of the above?

We can make a good case that Al Jolson is a great singer. Should we ignore his history of performing in blackface? Can we ignore it?

Could Adele do a great cover of "Living In the City"? She's a great singer, it's a great song, race shouldn't matter, right?

Ultimately, I don't see how we can take race/ethnicity or appropriation completely out of the picture, without distorting the history of music.


Oh, and btw, Bruno Mars is darker than me, and I'm a black guy. If anyone has the right to incorporate "black music" it's the guy that's as dark as many so-called black people.
Mars isn't black. He's 1/2 Filipino, 1/4 Puerto Rican, 1/4 Jewish. He grew up in Hawaii.

What's the criteria for inclusion? Is it that he's a minority? Is it merely the color of his skin? Is it based on acceptance by black musicians? Does it depend on how much discrimination he faced? How much has he faced? I don't know, do you?

And what do you say to someone else who is black, who doesn't think he earned that right? That is how this thread got started, after all.

He's talented, he works very hard, and like I said: I don't necessarily agree with the idea that he acted inappropriately. Rather, my point is that the topic is stunningly complex, and as a result I can fully understand why someone would be upset over his music.
 
Stevie Wonder & Malcolm Cecil - Living For The City



That gigantic synth is the very first polyphonic synth ever invented, by Malcolm Cecil, the crazy Englishman twiddling the knobs in the background.
Is Cecil "appropriating" black music or is he collaborating?

See, this is why all attempts at whining about cultural appropriation will inevitably break down into utter nonsense:
Too many musicians are going to refuse to play this dead end game and instead they will celebrate giving birth to new sounds and styles, because in the end, what moves your heart and spirit is what counts, not the purity and imprimatur of some politically correct appellation.

PS: Is Cecil's hairstyle considered further appropriation?

DISCLAIMER: Malcolm Cecil and his son Milton are friends of mine.
 
I've already answered your question. It's not my problem if you fail to understand the answer.
No...you havent. You blathered on and gave a pretty decent example as to why so many years after slavery so many people still believe they are slaves.
 
You'll notice that I agree with the OP and that I also still dismiss white, American idiots when they tell everyone else that racism is over.
Well...considering you already demonstrated your willingness to slurp misogynists in the name of political expediency it cant come as much a shock to you that I dont give much a **** about your opinions...so....
 
Well...considering you already demonstrated your willingness to slurp misogynists in the name of political expediency it cant come as much a shock to you that I dont give much a **** about your opinions...so....

Are you still babbling about Jay-Z? Life moved on, man. Try to catch up. Brand new thread.

Speaking of, Bruno Mars didn't appropriate any culture; and racism is alive and well. I hope you get it.
 
Last edited:
This is why we can't have nice things.
You cant have nice things because you look for ridiculous **** to cry foul over. People...plenty of racists. The institution of racism? Lost in "Bruno Mars stole muh culture."
 
Are you still babbling about Jay-Z? Life moved on, man. Try to catch up. Brand new thread.

Speaking of, Bruno Mars didn't appropriate any culture; and racism is alive and well. I hope you get it.
Nah...dont care about Jay Z. Simply laughing at how easily you swooned over him.

There will always be racists. Racism...its nothing more than a petty and pathetic cause these days.
 
Nah...dont care about Jay Z. Simply laughing at how easily you swooned over him.

Yet you bring him up every time you see my screen name.

There will always be racists. Racism...its nothing more than a petty and pathetic cause these days.

Says someone who has never suffered racism and doesn't understand what it is.
 
Yet you bring him up every time you see my screen name.



Says someone who has never suffered racism and doesn't understand what it is.
:lamo

Go find some more chains and a new master to justify your oppression. Its 2016, and most of us are done with this. This kind of topic is just another example. Its as ****ing ridiculous as the black students at Harvard whining about 'privilege'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Vj3DXwOBI
 
:lamo

Go find some more chains and a new master to justify your oppression. Its 2016, and most of us are done with this. This kind of topic is just another example. Its as ****ing ridiculous as the black students at Harvard whining about 'privilege'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Vj3DXwOBI

Well, sweetheart, it's 2018, not 2016. And you posted some YouTube thing from 2015. That's your support for claiming that racism no longer exists in a former slave-holding country? Holy ****. I can't say I'll miss the dying breed.
 
Nope, the "New Rules" are:

  1. Men cannot perform any works created by women;
  2. "Whites" cannot perform any works created by "non-Whites";
  3. People of "European extraction" cannot perform works by people of "non-European extraction";
  4. "Christians" cannot perform works created by "non-Christians";
  5. "Straights" cannot perform works created by "non-Straights"; and
  6. People of one generation cannot perform works created by people of a different generation.

There may well be other categories, but those are the basic ones.

We are also both using writing, a form of communication that was stolen from the Middle East :shock:
 
You are only allowed to sing music that comes from your own cultural background. So Bruno can only sing songs that are 50% Filipino, 25% Puerto Rican and 25% Jewish. I’m not sure what that would sound like but that is the lane Bruno can operate in.

But seriously, I am pretty freaking liberal on social issues but this cultural appropriation stuff is taken too far sometimes.

I get it if you want to bash Iggy Azalea for faking a southern black dialect to sell albums. But people like Bruno Mars or Eminem sound like Bruno Mars and Eminem.

Yeah, I agree with that stance. The appropriation issue was overblown and ended drowning out several people for the better part of 2015-2016.
 
Well, sweetheart, it's 2018, not 2016. And you posted some YouTube thing from 2015. That's your support for claiming that racism no longer exists in a former slave-holding country? Holy ****. I can't say I'll miss the dying breed.
You'll never have to worry about it because there will always be people like you desperate to find ways that you are oppressed...be it by whites, conservatives, wealthy people...whatever. There will always be people crying about stupid racial ****, but you know what/ Thats a GOOD thing. As long as people are willing to make stupid statements like "Bruno Mars stole muh culture!" or "white people should stay away from our Black Panther screenings...Wakanda forever!" or there are idiotic 'white free' groups on college campuses, it will testify to the fact that you have run out of relevant **** to moan about, and thats a good thing. But sadly....as long as you are committed to the mental slavery...there will always be mental slaves. Personally...I think thats ****ing tragic. Thats what has led to the black American community spiraling down the toilet while SOME in that community clearly demonstrate the capacity to rise up. But thats on them. Thats on you.
 
Chicago blues musicians didn't "appropriate" Delta blues, as they were part of the same culture -- musicians participated in the Great Migration, too. The Rolling Stones had a deep and long-standing respect for their blues predecessors, yet they were not part of the same culture -- and that's part of what fascinated them about the music. That particular cultural quirk also helped fuel their reputation as "Bad Boys." Long before their own compositional strengths were developed, they gained incredible fame, wealth and prestige while their influences were largely mired in poverty, while they were blocked from mainstream success by racism.

One problem is the social imbalances. Did Muddy Waters benefit as much artistically from the Rolling Stones, as the Stones did from Waters? When the Stones played with Muddy Waters, it was a gesture of respect -- or was it an attempt to burnish their blues credentials -- or both? Did the domination of blues music by drugged-out whites have no effect whatsoever on the original blues culture?

Another is that cultural appropriations license or foment other racial issues. One example is the "White Savior Complex," where the Great White (Male) Hero is dropped into another culture, and saves the day! when often the character of those social interactions can be devastating for the non-white culture.

Related to that impulse is the way that appropriation treats the originating culture as a type of exoticism, which trivializes the culture. <char limit snip>

This is not to say "it's all negative." Rather, it's that the situation is incredibly complex, and often includes far more downsides and insult than we usually assume -- especially for those on the winning side of the equation.

<snip>

Yes, it is incredibly complex. Naturally any discussion will be in shorthand.

Blues-Stones: I'm not going to disagree about how the Stones could benefit where their influences could not benefit to the same extent, etc., but what does one mean to say when one calls that appropriation? Is that a judgment that white musicians simply should not have tried to play their version of the blues, more generally, that people should basically stick to their own culture else they benefit from someone else's work in some other culture? Or is it an assertion that we should all just generally be mindful of the fact?

My bottom line point was that throughout history, negative consequences or not, cultures have always behaved in this way with respect to each other. And certainly, cultures that end up dominating for whatever reasons will generally end up incorporating elements of the ones that lose out. So, yeah, the Christians borrowed from Paganism. But it wasn't that they consciously set out to take something from the pagans. It's that for political reasons, Constantine and other emperors got generally behind one official religion. The pagans lost out. Once-Pagan people who were now Christian, at least publicly Christian, adopted elements of a culture they lost.

The claims of "appropriation" made today generally seem to be made as condemnation of a person of X culture doing something that implicitly belongs to Z culture. I think that's ludicrous. It ignores how people behave. It also tends to carry what I consider an unfair assumption that if person of X culture does something that implicitly belongs to Z culture, they're doing it to steal from that culture rather than simply because they appreciate and want to participate in it.



Pictures: "Ice Ice Baby" as "appropriation" of "Under Pressure"? Come on. More like plagiarism.

Blackface: I think that's more an example of straight-up racism in theatre/society as well as racist mockery of black people/culture, rather than white people somehow stealing from black culture.

The Last Samurai: See the opening paragraph. What exactly is being said when this is cited as an example of "cultural appropriation"? Should a white person simply not be in a movie about samurai because that is bad? Because if the white person is in the movie, something is being stolen from old Japanese culture? If memory serves, Cruise's character was supposed to be some battle-scarred alcoholic westerner who ends up in Japan to train the imperial army, loses, gets taken in by samurai rebelling, joins up, gets steeped in their culture, yadda yadda.

So again, by calling that "appropriation" are we saying that a Western filmmaker should simply not try to make a movie about samurai culture even if this filmmaker makes an honest/serious attempt to research it - leave movies about Japanese culture to the Japanese? Or if we don't mean that, what exactly do we mean? What would make the making of the movie acceptable non-appropriation?

Last picture: that simply appears to be a moron tourist being an asshole.
 
Back
Top Bottom