black roots - white fruits

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
'Racist' is not the best term to use here, I think we all mostly agree on that. But still.
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
Some small percentage of white people. It's quite possible I'm not white though, that would explain why I haven't been given my Peerage yet.
make the idea of gay heterophobia or female sexism against men an absurd one.
No, it's not absurd. On a day to day, one to one level it is not absurd if it affects the interactions of real individuals who do not always represent or have behind them the weight of some historical or systemic power structure they had or have no part in constructing or maintaining, and might in fact themselves be disadvantaged by. Stop the the fucking wheel of karma.
stelfox said:
when the issue at hand is the idea of an endemic white-on-black racism at the heart of western society
Specifically the issue at hand in this case is the 'recording industry'. Are all creative non-black musicians getting vast amounts of unconditional support from big record companies right now? I think Mr. Parrish's view is an understandable one but it's heavily skewed. It is very much the basis of racial prejudice to overlay colour on to what is really more like a class or business issue.
 
Last edited:

stelfox

Beast of Burden
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.


No mention of power or heriarchy.

ok, so now every concept can be fully defined by the dictionary and no further examination is needed. bearing this in mind, i give you...

Main Entry:
mu·sic Listen to the pronunciation of music
Pronunciation:
\ˈmyü-zik\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English musik, from Anglo-French musike, from Latin musica, from Greek mousikē any art presided over by the Muses, especially music, from feminine of mousikos of the Muses, from Mousa Muse
Date:
13th century

1 a: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b: vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony2 a: an agreeable sound : euphony <her voice was music to my ears> b: musical quality <the music of verse>3: a musical accompaniment <a play set to music>4: the score of a musical composition set down on paper5: a distinctive type or category of music <there is a music for everybody — Eric Salzman>


and

Main Entry:
1cul·ture Listen to the pronunciation of 1culture
Pronunciation:
\ˈkəl-chər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, cultivated land, cultivation, from Anglo-French, from Latin cultura, from cultus, past participle
Date:
15th century

1: cultivation, tillage2: the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education3: expert care and training <beauty culture>4 a: enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b: acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture> c: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate culture focused on the bottom line> d: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic <studying the effect of computers on print culture> <changing the culture of materialism will take time — Peggy O'Mara>6: the act or process of cultivating living material (as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation


and


Main Entry:
pol·i·tics Listen to the pronunciation of politics
Pronunciation:
\ˈpä-lə-ˌtiks\
Function:
noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology:
Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political
Date:
circa 1529

1 a: the art or science of government b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government2: political actions, practices, or policies3 a: political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b: political life especially as a principal activity or profession c: political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person5 a: the total complex of relations between people living in society b: relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics>


and


Main Entry:
phi·los·o·phy Listen to the pronunciation of philosophy
Pronunciation:
\fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural phi·los·o·phies
Etymology:
Middle English philosophie, from Anglo-French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
Date:
14th century

1 a (1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1)archaic : physical science (2): ethics c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs3 a: a system of philosophical concepts b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>4 a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
 
Last edited:

stelfox

Beast of Burden
paging matt woebot, moderators et al...

please close down the entire board. there is nothing further to discuss. ever
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"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."
Some people are trying to redefine it in this very thread but not the people you are talking about I fear.
What Stelfox, Ripley et al are doing is giving good reasons as to why that comment may be fairly mild racism or perhaps reasons to explain or justify that racism but they are not giving any reasons why it is not racism.
 
Stelfox was right to say that racist is an ugly word in this context. racism in the contemporary sense wouldn't exist without the establishing imperialist conception of race. what's disappointing about this interview is Parrish reinforces the taxonomy you'd hope he'd reject, really as much for what he says about black as white people. Some of these remarks may be tantamount to racism but that doesn't make racist the best word to reach for, especially as the interview as whole is mostly guff. as was said upthread it all seems more paranoid and/or embittered than anything else, and it was a loaded question. i read it and wasn't particularly offended, just a bit disappointed i spose... having said that there are white people involved one way or another in black music on this board so i'm not surprised at some hair triggers over the accusations of "tourism"!
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
paging matt woebot, moderators et al...

please close down the entire board. there is nothing further to discuss. ever
Discuss what you like. But if you get surprised or start saying "by definition you're wrong" when people use terms in the sense that they're commonly used and that appears in the dictionary they're probably going to get narked.

And yeah - to me it is an interesting question: how wide a lense do you use to decide who's in a "position of social power"? Are white people actually in a position of social power in the context of underground dance music? Is that too narrow a context? A definition that requires the sort of broad perspective that Padraig's talking about makes me kind of nervous just because there are going to be so many special cases and exceptions and it seems to risk generalizing people away into neatly defined categories too much for a useful discussion...
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
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.


No mention of power or heriarchy.

yes, well. I'll stick to my definition if it's all the same to you. not to be too redundant about it but the "the dictionary says..." argument is singularly uncompelling. in fact it's barely a step above supporting your arguments with quotations from the Bible.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Some small percentage of white people. It's quite possible I'm not white though, that would explain why I haven't been given my Peerage yet..

either you're totally missing the point or you're deliberately being obtuse. it doesn't encompass only that infintesimally "small %" who literally control vast wealth. rather, for the past several hundred years whites have generally, albeit w/numerous exceptions & a great deal of fighting amongst themselves, had the upper hand over everyone else to the extent that many things are still tipped unnaturally in our favor. one does not have to like or agree (as I certainly don't & I suspect yourself as well) with power structures w/the staggering weight of history behind them to inadvertantly reap their illicit benefits. and yes, there are many other concerns that cut across race, class very prominent among them. however, if you are poor & white you still reap benefits of your skin.

and in general the individual people/cases/acts argument not only misses the point but is also an invitation to get inextricably tangled in casuistry. analysis doesn't make any person infallible for their actions, it merely provides a context in which to frame those actions.
 

aMinadaB

Well-known member
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.
If you were to say this in the context of a serious discussion concerning race relations in the US, your statement would be not only ignorant but appalling, and you would be laughed out of the room, frankly.

Where even to begin in response to this nonsense? If all of the emo folks here want to whine and moan about blacks making blanket statements about whites, and then run behind the curtain of "oh no, that's reverse racism, you're fucking stupid and offensive, we are only supposed to fight for unity!" then you quite consciously and intentionally have chosen to ignore the interesting, salient, and relevant issues (which ripley and stelfox quite correctly pointed out). Call it what you want, cite all the dictionaries you like, call out Parrish for his views, fine, whatever, but that's missing the much more relevant points, which his comments bring the fore in a not entirely uninteresting way. The very first thing I think when I read that interview, is how to understand it, parse it, situate it, and learn from it ...not how to run to the nearest message board to hem and haw about his generalizations concerning race ...

And hey, given the historical context, so fucking what if non-whites want to make generalizations about white-dominated power structures? Seems to me that it is a fruitful conversation to have, and if people (e.g., Parrish) want to do it by making outrageous claims, then big deal, it's a discussion that I would MUCH RATHER HAVE, AND LISTEN TO, than to erase by your quick, easy, dismissive "oh how dare he generalize about all whites! tsk tsk" responses.

You know, it's a historically situated conversation and the question of racism in America is finally maybe getting some airtime in a fairly serious way (or, well, perhaps we're inching closer), so if you want to shut it down with sanctimonious and tin-eared shrill whining about 'reverse racism' then by all means, do so.

But my guess is that many folks have heard your complaints before and find them completely unhelpful.

Your comments about the white working class remind me, incidentally, of Hillary Clinton's last ditch re-invention of her candidacy as one for the 'working class,' which of course was a coded form of racism.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
it doesn't encompass only that infintesimally "small %" who literally control vast wealth
What is 'it' you refer to?
rather, for the past several hundred years whites have generally, albeit w/numerous exceptions & a great deal of fighting amongst themselves, had the upper hand over everyone else to the extent that many things are still tipped unnaturally in our favor. one does not have to like or agree (as I certainly don't & I suspect yourself as well) with power structures w/the staggering weight of history behind them to inadvertantly reap their illicit benefits. and yes, there are many other concerns that cut across race, class very prominent among them. however,
Even as we can agree that this has been broadly the case, what are you going to do about it, who are you going to blame, and how is that going to help?
if you are poor & white you still reap benefits of your skin.
Yes, perhaps. But you are also going to be subject to a whole lot of other conditions as you say, so it's still highly reductive.
and in general the individual people/cases/acts argument not only misses the point but is also an invitation to get inextricably tangled in casuistry.
You know I'm not making an argument about an individual case, if anything I'm talking in more broadly human terms. If I mention 'myself' it's by way of being honest in declaring that we always make these assessments through a personal grid to some extent. And I was being a bit sarcastic :)
analysis doesn't make any person infallible for their actions, it merely provides a context in which to frame those actions.
Whose analysis and what actions? I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

There are many kinds of analysis. Where does this all lead to because it seems to me that this type of one dimensional 'historical' (Marxist?) framework does nothing so much as maintain those conditions and reinforce those categories.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
The very first thing I think when I read that interview, is how to understand it, parse it, situate it, and learn from it ...not how to run to the nearest message board to hem and haw about his generalizations concerning race ...
Well done for not posting on a message board about it then.
And hey, given the historical context, so fucking what if non-whites want to make generalizations about white-dominated power structures? Seems to me that it is a fruitful conversation to have, and if people (e.g., Parrish) want to do it by making outrageous claims, then big deal,
The guy was basically trolling then you are saying? Fair enough, I can accept that, that's how I read it too.
it's a discussion that I would MUCH RATHER HAVE, AND LISTEN TO, than to erase by your quick, easy, dismissive "oh how dare he generalize about all whites! tsk tsk" responses.
If that's in response to me you are missing my point.

I think framing the discussion in such a way is counter-productive foot shooting and would like to suggest other ways to look at it.
You know, it's a historically situated conversation and the question of racism in America is finally maybe getting some airtime in a fairly serious way (or, well, perhaps we're inching closer), so if you want to shut it down with sanctimonious and tin-eared shrill whining about 'reverse racism' then by all means, do so.
Who's trying to do the shutting down here?
But my guess is that many folks have heard your complaints before and find them completely unhelpful.
How is it a 'complaint' that I wish to think about this in a different way? I'm not offended by the article, just by people insisting there's only only one approved way to talk about it.
Your comments about the white working class remind me, incidentally, of Hillary Clinton's last ditch re-invention of her candidacy as one for the 'working class,' which of course was a coded form of racism.
You really can't see how the apparent insistence, however rhetorical, that the predicament of 'black people' trumps all, might not, however unfortunately and incorrectly, rub some people who consider themselves 'non-black', up the wrong way?

I don't know what Clinton said, and I wouldn't necessarily be so surprised, but in what way is talking about class a coded form of racism? And yes I do note that your comment above is a not at all coded accusation of racism, nice one.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
You know, it's a historically situated conversation and the question of racism in America is finally maybe getting some airtime in a fairly serious way.
Of course this is important.

And I think it's crucial to use the historical perspective to understand how the present situation came to be. I think the mistake is taking it further and ascribing too much reality to the forces and systems you think you detect which can end up adding momentum to the very thing you are trying to fight.

Worth recognising as well that some of the different comments on this thread stem partly from differences between the US and the UK with regards to 'race' issues.
 
Last edited:

Pestario

tell your friends
Worth recognising as well that some of the different comments on this thread stem partly from differences between the US and the UK with regards to 'race' issues.

Seems like on the US side things are seen more in historical terms whilst on the UK side 'racism' is considered more in isolation and in the abstract.
 

stelfox

Beast of Burden
well, that's another generalisation. i'm british. however, i think there's a point somewhere in there. people in the US have a much stronger tradition of thinking about things in that way, because that's the way that discourse around the subject been shaped.
i guess i'm just more engaged in and conversant with these issues than the majority of british people, given the amount of time i spend in north america, the people i know there, the work i do etc.
it's worth noting that matters of race and prejudice are actually quite different from society to society. what is true of/works in a US context doesn't automatically corellate with the UK experience and certainly doesn't in a post-colonial nation like jamaica.
parrish is an african american, therefore i think it's worth approaching his comments (however wrongheaded many of them were - this much is not in dispute) with that in mind and taking a bit of time to consider where his ideas are coming from.
it's well worth thinking about these issues and discourses before throwing around extremely loaded terms such as "racist" about african american people, no matter what they're saying.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
yes, well. I'll stick to my definition if it's all the same to you. not to be too redundant about it but the "the dictionary says..." argument is singularly uncompelling. in fact it's barely a step above supporting your arguments with quotations from the Bible.

Why, cos it's all just written by a bunch of white men? Christ on a bike.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
no. because it's an extremely limited way of looking at the world.
It's not a way of looking at the world, it's a way of talking about how you look at the world. And if for the purposes of this thread people can't be racist unless they've got social power on their side (or rather, people the same colour as them have social power on their side) then that's fine but that's not the way that the term is commonly used so it'd be polite to give a bit of warning and not use phrases like 'by definition'.
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
It'd be like me telling people off for calling a synth modular when it isn't, and on further questioning explaining that SL(2,Z) doesn't even have an action defined on it, so it certainly can't be invariant under that action and thus by defintion can't be modular.
 

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
I liked the bit about stealing (mostly white) but hey did you forget the Ugly Edits Theo ;)

The whole thing is ill thought out, full of holes and makes him look like a dick.
 
Top