If Bruno stole Uptown Funk from the Gap Band, and Viktorija claims Bruno stole Uptown Funk from her…then it stands to reason that Viktorija stole her shit from the Gap Band???
I believe a year ago we had a thread on the topic because I remember making a crack about how good it was that no one would pretend to be Irish Catholic “this weekend”. The more things change.
Hey, you even contributed to it! And the original complaint was arguably even stupider than complaining about Bruno Mars!
Rachel Dolezal might be a relevant example.
People seem to be mixing up the various ways that expression can be legitimate or illegitimate. Someone can be illegal without being offensive, and it can be offensive without being illegal.
Trademark laws are intended to protect business interests, and are limited and specific. I am not allowed to put the word “Campbell’s” on a can of soup that I make myself and offer for sale. However, I can put the same word on a painting of a can of tomato soup and sell it for millions (or, at least, Andy Warhol could).
Usually accusations of cultural appropriation are complaints about something being offensive, not illegal. When a member of a college marching band wears an Indian war bonnet as part of a halftime show, it can offend the people for whom the symbol has a real cultural meaning, and who want to be seen as real people rather than mascots. Other examples include new age cultural dilettantism with things like Australian aboriginal dreamwork and Madonna’s public devotion to the kabbalah (when she sort-of-changed her name to Esther).
The problem is that, when carried to an extreme, prohibitions of cultural appropriation lead to a kind of cultural apartheid, in which personal choices are restricted by one’s ethnic background. This is how we end up with absurd things such as white women being criticized for wearing hoop earrings. It is particularly destructive when applied to art, since (as has already been pointed out) all art borrows from previous art, and some of the most important artistic advances have come from mixing of cultural influences (e.g. jazz and modern painting like that of Matisse).
I don’t think there’s a sharp dividing line between the acceptable and the unacceptable when it comes to using the forms and symbols of another culture. And even with a fuzzy line, people don’t agree on where it should be. But to me, what Bruno Mars is doing just doesn’t come close to offensive.
According to the article, he stole 17% of it from the Gap Band, and Viktorija is (conveniently) claiming he stole 80% of it from her… I’m sure they were entirely different parts.
I don’t think this is a good example at all. I seem to remember somebody writing a thoughtful piece questioning exactly what the distinction was between Dolezal adopting an African American ethnic identity, if that’s the way she genuinely self-identifies, and all of us feeling free to adopt our chosen gender identity?
When racial dysphoria gets an entry in the DSM alongside gender dysphoria, I’ll start considering it.
Cultural appropriation is when one culture takes something from another culture. This can be good or bad but you have to look at who is doing the appropriating and why. Many people and cultures engage in appropriation that is viewed positively if it is remarked on at all. I like Lindsay Ellis’s explanation of the term in this video on Pocahontas.
What I find more fascinating is this quote from the vlogger,
“Bruno Mars has an Album of the Year Grammy, Prince never won an Album of the Year Grammy. So, how are you going to say that people who are originators in the funk genre, originators in R&B, New Jack Swing—Bobby Brown and New Edition don’t have no Album of the Year Grammy. Bruno Mars got that Grammy because white people love him because he’s not black, period.”
Yes, Prince never won album of the year, but he certainly didn’t lack for grammy wins in other categories. I think it’s very hard to seriously suggest that Prince or Bobby Brown have not been appropriately appreciated for their musical talents.
Well I wouldn’t have mentioned Prince and Bobby Brown in the same sentence but certainly Prince was universally admired and lauded as a genius, someone that transcended race. Who actually cared or noticed he was black?
And until I saw Bruno Mars I hadn’t given much thought to what race he was. Maybe if he were completely horrible or excellent I might have cared at least a bit.
…if you are going to rant about “cultural appropriation” then the least you could fucking do is do a bit of fucking research and understand exactly what it is you are ranting about.
The British colonised Australia, killed the indigenous people in their thousands, drove them off their lands, seized their waterways and resources. Indigenous Australians are the most incarcerated people in the world. Communities have been decimated by alcoholism, underfunding, neglect and racism. Is it any wonder why they want to protect the few things that they have left?
Context is important. From the cite:
“This declaration arose out of a meeting of Indigenous and non-Indigenous specialists, who, at Jingarrba, in north-eastern Australia, agreed Indigenous intellectual property rights are best determined from within the customary laws of the Indigenous groups’ themselves.”
So what does that mean for you?
Absolutely fucking nothing.
Do you want me to feel sad about that? I don’t feel sad that people can’t independently make a Star Wars movie and generate income from it by releasing it on the big screen. I don’t feel sad that people can’t use my copyrighted images to promote somebody else’s product without my permission. There are a huge set of laws and treaties that protect the intellectual property rights of the individual and for organizations. It isn’t “nonsense” to consider expanding those sets of laws and treaties to protect the intellectual property rights of a tribe. They do that here.
I don’t give a fuck what you consider acceptable. Of course indigenous limitations “seek to go further.” What would you expect to happen when you create new law?
That’s an opinion. As a creator of content I disagree. But that’s for another thread.
Under customary law they already have those protections in perpetuity. Has that hurt human diversity at all?
And it is perfectly legal to do anything you fucking like with indigenous intellectual property right now. So enjoy your right to do whatever you fucking please. Go create some art in the style of the Australian aborigines. Make a book or film out of a traditional tribal oral story. GO HARD. Stop complaining about “cultural appropriation” and do it already. The only thing that indigenous people can do to stop you doing it is to ask you to stop. If you choose to ignore them, what are they gonna do? Hurt your feelings by calling you a “cultural appropriator?”
“Good” is a subjective assessment.
Is “Seren Sensei” even Japanese? Otherwise, that’s hella hypocritical cultural appropriation, even if it has a pop-culture nickname.
(The first is a honest question. I can’t find a biography of her that allows me to discern her “legitimate cultural basis.”)
IMHO, the whole issue is bullshit, but sauce for the gander is even more deliciously ironic on the goose.
That’s the key distinction IMO. An individual or individuals who actually creating something should have IP rights. People of the same national or language group who didn’t, shouldn’t.
‘Cultural appropriation’ assumes groups right I personally reject. Not everyone has to agree.
Like any other general idea their might be exceptions, but broad racial or ethnic groups are not in general to be compared with small indigenous tribes so exceptions wrt to the latter wouldn’t do much to overturn the general idea that yes, ‘cultural appropriation’ is bullshit 95% of the time it’s claimed. I didn’t see anyone say it was BS absolutely 100% of the time.
Maybe?
I knew exactly what was meant by the term (as flexible and nebulous as it is) and my “research” made not one jot of difference (seeing as intellectual property is only one small part of it).
No need to single out the British, humans are utterly horrible when it comes to the treatment of the “other”
no
hurgh!..say it again.
Not the point I was making at all.That is rightly covered by current (limited) laws. At some point in the future they will become public domain and people will be able to do the above. Seems a sensible balance to me.
rightly covered by existing laws, ditto my answer above.
which seems to include that particular artistic practice under the same laws as anything else. If I want to do a straight copy of it I have to attribute it to a specific creator. If I wanted to do a parody or adaptation or something in the “style” of it then I’m still free to do so. No problem.
I hope that I don’t live in a world where new laws only ever seek to go further. Your words seem to suggest that you would. Interesting. I’ve been clear as to what IP protection is acceptable to me, what about you?
Do you think cultures should have legal recourse when someone creates “in the style of” how far do you think legal sanctions should go?
I create content as well, as you say our opinions differ. I create and distribute it freely to the public in order to allow others to copy, modify and adapt.
how would we know? I’d have to give an example of something that* hasn’t *been created in order to show diversity has been harmed. I think it is enough to assert that people should be free to pick and choose aspects of any culture to do with what they like, if they are legally restricted from doing so then they are de facto restricted in the artistic choices they can make so in my opinion, yes, diversity is harmed.
I thought you said above that some do have legal protection… which is it? If there are no legal restrictions then the world we live in now is one produced by the free exchange of art, culture, practices, music…etc and much the better for it.
I may do just that.
it is an attractive style isn’t it?
absolutely, I’d encourage people to do so.
actually I can’t be arsed. It is enough to know that I can if I want to.
hardly, I don’t recognise the validity of the term as defined by others, it is white noise. If am not stealing a physical item or fraudulently passing things off as genuine or copying the protected work of another author then the only harm possible is “offence”. One always has to balance the offence you cause to others against the need to self-express. By choosing to do something that offends others you rightly leave yourself open to societal backlash but certainly no legal sanction should come from it.
but less so than “cultural appropriation”
Seems I am going to do exactly what I mentioned in another thread - link to The Root.
Here is another perspective on this same topic and one I respectfully agree with. https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/the-bruno-mars-controversy-proves-people-don-t-understa-1823709412
When listened to calmly, many points make sense and are not calling for anyone to stop making any sort of music. However, there are some who trade on black culture for the bucks or the attention and then are able to discard it whenever they please without any consequences because of their white skin. (Miley Cyrus is the perfect example.)
So while I agree Bruno Mars isn’t engaging in cultural appropriation, it’s not a topic to be completely dismissed.
That article is patronising bullshit. Musical styles can come from a single culture or mixture or cultures and traditions but no-one “owns” it and anyone using a particular style as an influence does not owe an explanation or attribution to anyone else. The music stands or falls by itself. The whole article seeks to set up one particular racial group (as yet ill-defined but I suspect you have to be black enough) as arbiters of who gets a free pass or who can be decried for not giving enough attribution to the originators of that style. Balls to that.
self-serving bullshit
racist bullshit
ignorant bullshit
I don’t really know where I stand in regard to legal restriction - I think I’m more or less on the same page as you, but there are cases where free speech crosses a line and (whilst still only expression) turns into victimisation, bullying and harrassment - and I would like victims of such treatment to have some sort of legally-supported redress. I am talking about the extremes here though - in the vast majority of cases, I think it should probably be sufficient that we all use our own freedom of speech to respond by pointing and laughing, scorning and mocking.
This bit…
…seems so idiotic to me.
Kinda like saying that anyone publishing a book is, by definition, making white books. And using a piano…anyone making a telephone call is…anyone using math is…anyone wearing clothes is …I just cannot see how the inventor’s race matters nor how that gives other members of that race or gender or their descendants ownership of that invention or the works derived from it…
[sub]Anyone starting in with ‘well, the first person to use math was…’ will be fed to the lions [/sub]
I suspect we are on the same page and I also think that the law is already able to distinguish between simple speech (however offensive) and the “victimisation, bullying and harassment” that you mention.
I absolutely support your final sentence. Laughing, scorning, mocking and satire in general is hugely important.
There’s a show on PBS - Finding Your Roots, hosted by Henry Lewis Gates. It’s basically documenting the family tree of 3 guest each week that are in some way connected. Not connected by ancestry, but by some other characteristic. They follow the paper trail, and after that runs out, they do a DNA analysis.
One thing I’ve learned is that most (and by most, I mean damn near all) African Americans descended from slaves are, to some degree, also of European descent. The old masters did a lot of sneakin’ and creepin’. For example, Dr. Gates Y chromosome is mostly found in people of Irish descent. He shares it with Bill Maher, Bill O’Riley, and, well, me.
It makes me wonder - just how black do you need to be to preform, say, Rap and Hip-Hop? 66%? >50%? >25%? One drop? Is there a different % for Soul? The Blues? Rock? If I can prove a blood relationship with an African American, can I Rap without offending someone? (It’s a rhetorical question - any musical performance I give will offend everyone in ear shot. God hates me. He gave me the love of music, and denied me the talent to make it.)