black roots - white fruits

ripley said:

no he is not. Because racism involves not only prejudice but also power.

Click to expand...

That's a specific (presumably social studies?) definition of racism, though. I can see there are good reasons for using it, but common usage tends to include prejudice even in the absence of power.

Racist statements are statements that have the backdrop of social power.

Click to expand...

In the context of underground dance music, though, Theo Parrish does have social power...

Slothrop said:

That's a specific (presumably social studies?) definition of racism, though.

Click to expand...

Snort.

ripley said:

I thought he got a bit sweeping at the end (the last two paragraphs), and that he didn't raise the other racial issues (latino, asian, etc) as much as he could, but on the whole I thought much of it didn't seem too inaccurate a description of how the American music industry has worked.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he is pretty much telling it like it is as far as I can see, except for the excesses.

However, just as you say it is important to understand the historical and institutional backdrop to power relationships I would say it is even more crucial at this point to recognise that 'white people' ≠ Power and to hold this position is to miss the point and play into the hands of power. Drawing things along colour lines like that is divisive and counter-productive.

Eric said:

anyway it seemed to me that theo just answered the question put to him. `have you stopped beating your wife?' this kind of thing.

Click to expand...

To be fair, this as well. The question was about race dynamics in the music industry after all.

i aint the one.

noel emits said:

however, just as you say it is important to understand the historical and institutional backdrop to power relationships i would say it is even more crucial at this point to recognise that 'white people' ≠ power and to hold this position is to miss the point and play into the hands of power. Drawing things along colour lines like that is divisive and counter-productive.

Click to expand...

otm

"No they're not, and saying it three, or as many different ways as you like, ain't gonna make it so. That blacks have suffered more from white racism than vice versa (and women than men etc etc) isn't in dispute, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to redefine the language."

Click to expand...

2That's a specific (presumably social studies?) definition of racism, though. I can see there are good reasons for using it, but common usage tends to include prejudice even in the absence of power."

Click to expand...

Totally right.
Of course racism (and pretty much anything else) from people with more power is more harmful but that doesn't mean that racism doesn't work in a number of different directions.

It's just occured to me that the title of the interview unintentionally refers to the popularity of early house music on the UK gay scene.

noel emits said:

Yeah, he is pretty much telling it like it is as far as I can see, except for the excesses.

However, just as you say it is important to understand the historical and institutional backdrop to power relationships I would say it is even more crucial at this point to recognise that 'white people' ≠ Power and to hold this position is to miss the point and play into the hands of power. Drawing things along colour lines like that is divisive and counter-productive.
.

Click to expand...

do you really think that the most important thing is not to talk about how white people are advantaged in relation to black people? can you explain how it helps black people to not talk about that?

Of course, let's just all only talk about how we are personally disadvantaged, that sounds like a great recipe for unity and fighting power. Or is it only black people who have right to complain about anything?

It's fucking stupid and offensive. No wonder you get people talking about how the white working class has been abandoned.

If you are black, or fat, or gay, or whatever, and you look at everything through that lens, if your whole identity is bound up in that then, apart from most likely being an asshole, you are going to have a very distorted view of the world and how others experience it. You are going to resent your fellows and assume they have an easy time or are somehow responsible for your suffering because they don't have exactly the same experience as you. And you are going to miss who the real enemy is, that we share.

So let's fight amongst ourselves and blame each other while the rich and powerful laugh at our division.

By the way Jaie

is it so hard for people just to agree that i'm right for once?
it's not a lot to ask, especially when i am.

stelfox said:

is it so hard for people just to agree that i'm right for once?
it's not a lot to ask, especially when i am.

Click to expand...

lol

I don't know if the societal power structures support this but I am prejudiced against people who think they are right

ripley said:

no he is not. Because racism involves not only prejudice but also power. that's what Stelfox said about three different ways. Racist statements are statements that have the backdrop of social power.

It's not tiptoeing, it's avoiding inaccuracy and avoiding contributing to blinkered ideas about power in society.

You could say Parrish is being prejudiced, or mean, or short-sighted, or something else if you don't agree with him. But it really eliminates something meaningful to equate a black person being prejudiced against whites and a white person being prejudiced against blacks. It ignores the larger power dynamic that supports white prejudice and makes the effects of white prejudice systemic (not hailing cabs, not getting loans, being more likely to be shot by police

the "acceptable perjorative" question is just silly. It's not about what's acceptable, it's about what's accurate and true. "Racist" is not just an insult, it means something - it means that the racist act contributes to and relies on racial hierarchy in society.

Click to expand...

I certainly see what you're getting at here, but I think it's an oversimplification. After all, you could say there is a 'balance of power', or 'power dynamic', at work in every kind of interaction between two or more people, be it social, commericial, artistic or whatever. White people may be more likely to be politicians and black people more likely to be in prison, but that doesn't automatically invest any given white person with some magic power over any given black person, regardless of the situation. As others have pointed out, Parrish, as an established and well-known artist, is in a position of power relative to some up-and-coming DJ or producer (whatever his ethinic origin) who's trying to make a name for himself.

Obviously there is this larger backdrop of the historical and continuing context of race and politics, but I think it's a mistake to assume that this somehow outweighs the particulars of any given instance of a prejudiced statement or act. To give a specific example, a couple of people I know were attacked by some black guys and could very easily have been killed (this was in Chicago's South Side) for being "in the wrong part of town" (which is to say, for being white) - to then say "well, blacks are generally less privileged than whites and there was the whole slavery thing, so it wasn't really racist" is just bullshit. I mean, who had the better part of the 'power dynamic' in that situation?

Also, GFC's comment deserves a hearty ROFL.

The funny thing is as well is that Parrish is very selective with his musical history. Did none of the original black techno artists have any white European influence? I remember reading something that Simon Reynolds wrote about this - the obvious pointers are the Derrick May description of techno - Kraftwerk and George Clinton stuck in a lift. Many of George Clinton and Sly Stone's band members were white. Sly Stone used to get threats from the Black Panthers about using white musicians. And of course there's the whole Bambaata/Kraftwerk thing too.

What about The Prodigy? Two frontmen - one black and one white. Eminem used to get props from every rapper in the game when he was doing stuff on Rawkus - just before the release of his first Slim Shady album. Produced by one of the best producers in any genre. Yeah R&B is sugary, but so is pop music. Backstreet Boys? Take That? N-Sync?

People like Timberland and Neptunes (and yes I know that Chad is not black) have the money and resources to work with anyone. And guess what? Sometimes they work with some singers who are white (Gwen Stefani, Timberlake et al) and sometimes they work with non-white perfomers (Clipse, Keri Hilson, Jay-Z, Snoop Dogg). So what? How would Hollaback Girl sound with Beyonce performing it?

"If you recognize that and are smart enough to possibly have a plan for them, we’ll have you killed, make you a ‘hood’ martyr, and make money off your product for decades long after your gone. Were not trying to be sponsors of a revolution here…(Tupac/Biggie)".

Is this some kind of bizarre conspiracy theory here?

Did Tupac really say anything incendiary on his records? He was never a revolutionary - I'm still mystified at the amount of people who love his work when he was at best, crushingly mediocre. He got killed because he had an argument with some people who had guns. End of story.

Public Enemy never got killed, as I understand it, Chuck D got a job on CNN at one point didn't he? And surely they're more 'revolutionary' than most black acts (Revolution Generation, Fight The Power etc)

Just my two cents worth.

this seems to fall into the bizarre 'black people cant be racist' notion. or people just being over-liberal.

noel emits said:

It's fucking stupid and offensive.

Click to expand...

i think that sums up how i feel about stelfox and ripley's line of arguing here....

i'm not liberal. after reading this thread, i'd have you all jailed if i could

this is probably one of those things that can't really be explained over a message board, but to chime in w/stelfox & ripley; it's not about any reluctance, stemming from political correctness or guilt or what have you, to call people who aren't white "racist". it's just incorrect to apply the term in that manner. racism has to do not only with power, but with power structures & institutions. so even grievous individual cases, like a white person being mugged in a black neighborhood w/presumable racial overtones, don't transcend those overarching forces. nobody is defending Theo Parrish or hypothetical muggers, nor is anyone claiming that racial prejudice of any kind is good or desirable.

the difference, is between prejudice & racism. all racism stems includes prejudice, but "racism" by definition implies systematic power, and it flows in one direction in relation to power. white people don't have a monopoly on racism by any means, but they control the most wealth/territory/resources & have done so for a long time, so generally they have gained/gain the most benefit from the status quo. the same thing goes for male/straight/wealthy/etc - for each one of those pieces you get an inherent advantage, & well it might not ensure success it does, as stelfox pointed out, make the idea of gay heterophobia or female sexism against men an absurd one.

to further confuse the matter of power, in situations where dominance is less clear, more fluid, it's harder to differentiate; I'm thinking about parts of the Balkans, the tangled web of relationships between Israel/Palestinians/other Arabs, the complex rivalries between different immigrant groups in the U.S., and so on as always w/race things quickly get very fucking complicated if you delve into any situation in any depth, even if in this case w/Parrish things are pretty clear-cut.

like I said, a message board doesn't really do this justice. plus, it's kind of semantics at this point, with "racism" and the oxymoron "reverse-racism" getting tossed around so much that the former is almost redefined by the contexts people use it in. it's like Chapelle - tons & tons of people laughed at the racial humor while totally missing the point.

but "racism" by definition implies systematic power, and it flows in one direction in relation to power.

Click to expand...

OH, god not again.

No. It. Doesn't. Not in my dictionary, not in any online one I can find.

here's thefreedictionary.com's definition.

Noun
1. hostile or oppressive behaviour towards people because they belong to a different race
2. the belief that some races are innately superior to others because of hereditary characteristics

Click to expand...

No mention of power or heriarchy.