Not at all, the problem is when people seem to say something is exclusive to a given race.
Joel Send a noteboard - 23/03/2010 11:51:06 AM
In this advert, "blackness" as a quality of the music (whatever that may mean) is presented in a positive way. If it's racist against anyone, it's non-blacks.
The preferred (though stupid) term is "reverse discrimination" and, yes, that's also unacceptable. Racism of any sort is wrong, even if banning racist thoughts, attitudes and speech would infringe on free speech; many things are legal but immoral. To present "blackness" as a quality of the music but in a positive way is in the same vein as saying white people have no rhythm. Implying positive qualities in the music are exclusively black is no different and no better than implying positive qualities in representative democracy are exclusively white just because those democracies first developed in Europe.
What I mean by this is that it would be consistent with the implications of the advert to say "There's too much damn whiteness in this music; let's get rid of it" (not that they do say that, but they could without contradicting themselves). Similarly with "Indian-ness", "Chinese-ness" or whatever. But they couldn't say "There's too much damn blackness in this music; let's get rid of it" without effectively saying the opposite of what the advert suggests.
America: Seriously, I can understand why you guys are so hypersensitive about anything to do with race, but it's still really annoying. And it doesn't help you get over your problems.
America: Seriously, I can understand why you guys are so hypersensitive about anything to do with race, but it's still really annoying. And it doesn't help you get over your problems.
Yes, it would be consistent with the ads theme to say, "this music isn't black enough" but that wouldn't really help us "get over" anything either. Being color blind means just that, it doesn't mean you negate inequities by literally reversing them. If it's wrong to say something isn't "white enough" it's equally wrong to say it's not "black enough. " And once again, after I spent much of 2008 hearing about how the Democratic Presidential nominee was first not "black ENOUGH" and later "TOO black" I'm more weary than ever of hearing about how things aren't "[insert racial term here] enough. " In the past I've quoted (courtesy of PBS) Hank Williams' black blues guitar mentor as saying, "country music is white folks blues" but maybe if we weren't so willing to create and accept such distinctions our history wouldn't be quite so bloody and we wouldn't have so many white country music lovers still searching for Obamas birth certificate after it's been publicly released.
I don't mind mentions of race where appropriate. If we want to talk about predisposition to sickle cell or melanoma it's perfectly reasonable. If we want to discuss the origins of jazz, blues, country or ballads that's fine, too. But in terms of contemporary enjoyment of music making it a racial thing is, IMHO, a very bad idea, both because it ignores the reality of musics appeal across racial lines and because it serves a plethora of very nasty stereotypes ultimately harmful to everyone.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Is it racist?: Commercial for Jazz/Soul radio
22/03/2010 01:47:45 PM
- 2692 Views
I don't think it's racist at all
22/03/2010 07:15:55 PM
- 723 Views
Uh.
22/03/2010 09:36:35 PM
- 833 Views
Re: Uh.
29/03/2010 07:03:14 PM
- 770 Views
I'm not Dutch, but that was a pretty ignornant claim
29/03/2010 07:20:09 PM
- 705 Views
Re: I'm not Dutch, but that was a pretty ignornant claim
29/03/2010 07:28:34 PM
- 796 Views
Not "higher" nor "lower," but "different" would be the word to use here
29/03/2010 07:46:15 PM
- 638 Views
Re: Not "higher" nor "lower," but "different" would be the word to use here
29/03/2010 07:53:56 PM
- 590 Views
This. ~points at Larry's post~ *NM*
29/03/2010 07:42:35 PM
- 404 Views
Re: This. ~points at Larry's post~
29/03/2010 07:57:30 PM
- 679 Views
Um.
29/03/2010 08:00:54 PM
- 832 Views
Re: Um.
29/03/2010 08:44:31 PM
- 621 Views
My question for you was on that one line that Larry responded to.
29/03/2010 08:46:26 PM
- 651 Views
She agrees with you about it not being racist - she had issues with your "crude" comment.
29/03/2010 08:59:44 PM
- 652 Views
I don't see it
22/03/2010 08:19:31 PM
- 687 Views
i'd say the actions in the commercial are more racist than the words
22/03/2010 10:00:02 PM
- 681 Views
It would not float here in the US
22/03/2010 10:07:08 PM
- 691 Views
Agreed.
23/03/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 843 Views
Could you please expand on one point in your reasoning?
23/03/2010 07:20:31 AM
- 690 Views
It's not race specific music if it's enjoyed/performed/presented by various races.
23/03/2010 07:32:33 AM
- 922 Views
MOBO
23/03/2010 10:20:22 AM
- 635 Views
The trouble lies in historical neuroses cooked in our melting pot, I think.
23/03/2010 11:29:06 AM
- 687 Views
Only if it's racist to mention the fact that different races exist. Which seems to be the US view.
23/03/2010 09:24:23 AM
- 679 Views
Agreed
23/03/2010 10:21:59 AM
- 705 Views
Some people are like that, yes, but at least it isn't the "accepted" media position. Yet. *NM*
23/03/2010 11:01:47 AM
- 356 Views
Not at all, the problem is when people seem to say something is exclusive to a given race.
23/03/2010 11:51:06 AM
- 920 Views
I agree with some of what you say, but I think you're assuming more than is warranted.
23/03/2010 02:33:34 PM
- 646 Views