5 ms·

A big thing in the background of all of this; America, perhaps the world, myself included, really hasn't come to properly reckon with the extent to which we all

by jrm4 3y ago

A big thing in the background of all of this; America, perhaps the world, myself included, really hasn't come to properly reckon with the extent to which we all subconsciously think of Black American art (including hip-hop) as something to be "taken" or "used" or generally not culturally owned by Black folks, usually Americans. The example that sticks in my head: if I, a black guy, were to get into Irish step-dancing, that's great. I would never, though, suggest that it's "not just Irish, it's universal." I'd respect where it comes from. Yet we have ALL heard the well-meaning, but ultimately a bit harmful, exact same thing said about Hip-hop. I think this ends up having real life consequences; see e.g. the rise of (Rap)Genius.com. They got big on the back of rap lyrics without much respecting the artists AT ALL.

aesch 3y ago
Look at the influence of sampling in hip hop. Sampling is literally taking music from different time periods, genres, cultures and making something new from it. If the mothers and fathers of hip hop had respected cultural ownership hip hop would never have been born in the first place. For any piece of culture to stay culturally relevant it must be "taken" and "used" and evolve. I agree that we should respect and acknowledge the founders of the culture, but once it is set free in the world it has to be shared to grow and thrive.
cookie_monsta 3y ago
As a white guy I am aware of the minefield I am skipping merrily into here, but here goes: I can see the general point here, but don't think it applies as strongly to hip hop. Maybe it's just the circles I move in, but hip hop fans and artists seem to be quite aware of the origin stories and hold a particular reverence for the old school. Compare that to rock fans who wouldn't look further back than Presley (the king, lol) or green day fans who have never even heard of the stooges. Maybe it's because hip hop is a relatively young genre and ties to the old school fade as generations pass. If we're talking about money then yeah, sure - I'd be surprised if any of the creators made anything out of it compared to what corporate America does, but that's nothing new either. I don't know anything about (Rap)Genius.com, but I guess my question would be: what would you prefer to be happening that would respect the genre's origins but still allow it to grow?
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
There are plenty of exported musical genres where the connection to the culture of origin was completely sundered. It only takes a few decades for that. Finnish tango has no connection to Argentina. Irish traditional music plays a lot of mazurkas (a traditional Polish form that came over) with no acknowledgement of or even awareness of Poland. Only natural the same would happen to hip-hop. Also, because hip-hop requires as a minimum nothing more than a source of a beat and the ability to do intricate wordplay, and is arguably the most accessible of genres, it has found root in impoverished communities worldwide. People in those communities might not have the relatively privileged background that would allow them to explore the history of the genre and the original culture in the USA that it came out of.
jl6 3y ago
What does it mean for hip-hop to be culturally owned by black folks? What does it mean for non-black hip-hop artists?
- jrm4 3y ago
  It means that you should acknowledge the culture of the people who started it, not too much more than that? It can get dicey and weird at times, and there's a lot of details that one could get into, and that's good homework to do -- but I definitely find that the vast majority of popular white rappers do a good job of this, e.g. Eminem.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > the people who started it what constitutes the start? DJ Kool Herc? If you asked him, he would list his influences and predecessors... do they not count ? If you try to demarcate some sort of cultural "break" where X becomes Y, how do you do that? And how do you handle subsequent cultural "breaks" that presumably, by the same logic, create something new. How do you handle parallel flows that then converge (such as electro-funk evolving under the influence of kraftwerk, and then becoming the first thing actually named "hip-hop") ? This is all nonsense. Culture is not "owned". Almost all the best culture in the world is mongrel culture that arose from someone who grew up in one culture(s) being exposed to other cultures and mixing them together in a way that generally reflects as much upon the individual as or more than the source cultures. Hip-hop is no different in this respect to any other form of human expression. If there's an art form that seems "pure" to you, the most likely explanation is that you haven't gone far enough into the past to understand how it is also just another mongrel form.
- mmx4332 3y ago
  It doesn't mean anything. Nobody can "own" something like that. And nobody "owes" anything either to anyone else.
qntty 3y ago
A piece of culture is important in proportion to the reluctance of people to assign an owner to it, whether legal or otherwise. No one would criticize a Frenchman for using Newton's Laws because it belongs to the British. Someone who is really enthusiastic about something will emphasize that it is universally appreciated. E.g., Shakespeare being put on by diverse cultures, Islam trying to spread itself to every corner of the world, Chinese silk being exported to anyone who will buy it, etc. If I was a hip hop artist, there would be no bigger insult than assigning ownership of my art to a specific culture. If it's really so great, it should speak to everyone. If this isn't true of Irish step dancing, it's because it's a relatively trivial art form. You can trivialize hip hop too if you want, but it's not necessarily doing hip hop artists any favors.
- jrm4 3y ago
  Would you really make this argument with any other cultural contribution? Come on. You think it's insulting to assign the Hula to Hawaiians? This makes NO sense.
  - qntty 3y ago
    I don't know the significance of hula, but if it doesn't aspire to be something great, then assigning it to Hawaiians wouldn't be an insult, since it doesn't contradict their own view of it. People will often times contextualize things to downplay it's importance. For example, if I think it's disrespectful to talk about hip hop in a certain way, you can contextualize my view by saying it's an outgrowth of early 21st century American progressive legitimation narratives. I want my views to be universal, but by placing them in the context of a certain country, time, and ideology, they are downplayed.
nsajko 3y ago
> we all subconsciously think of Black American art (including hip-hop) as something to be "taken" or "used" or generally not culturally owned by Black folks, usually Americans It's a bit silly to try to prescribe or restrict "ownership" of culture. Culture is and always has been a product of sharing and mixing of existing traditions. EDIT: I think there's also some hidden issues at play here. You basically want people across the world to directly acknowledge "black citizens of USA" as an ethnicity (to protect "your" culture). Some problems with this: * You don't straight out say this, probably because skin-color-based ethnicity/nationalism is a touchy subject (e.g., white nationalism is basically taboo). But then how can you expect your request to be taken in good faith? * Your request is somewhat US-centric, as a "Black American" ethnicity would after all be just a US minority, presumably not even independent from the mainstream to the degree that, e.g., many European minorities are in their countries. I'll admit I'm putting words into your mouth, but clearly there's lots of things being left unsaid every time these discussions come up, so I don't feel too bad.
- jrm4 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hluska 3y ago
  You managed to take a simple statement and twist it into something ugly. In doing so, all you did was prove their point. Finally, your finale about how you don’t feel too bad was in unbelievably bad taste. Social skills don’t seem to be your forte.

by jrm4 3y ago

aesch 3y ago

Look at the influence of sampling in hip hop. Sampling is literally taking music from different time periods, genres, cultures and making something new from it. If the mothers and fathers of hip hop had respected cultural ownership hip hop would never have been born in the first place. For any piece of culture to stay culturally relevant it must be "taken" and "used" and evolve. I agree that we should respect and acknowledge the founders of the culture, but once it is set free in the world it has to be shared to grow and thrive.

cookie_monsta 3y ago

As a white guy I am aware of the minefield I am skipping merrily into here, but here goes: I can see the general point here, but don't think it applies as strongly to hip hop. Maybe it's just the circles I move in, but hip hop fans and artists seem to be quite aware of the origin stories and hold a particular reverence for the old school. Compare that to rock fans who wouldn't look further back than Presley (the king, lol) or green day fans who have never even heard of the stooges. Maybe it's because hip hop is a relatively young genre and ties to the old school fade as generations pass. If we're talking about money then yeah, sure - I'd be surprised if any of the creators made anything out of it compared to what corporate America does, but that's nothing new either. I don't know anything about (Rap)Genius.com, but I guess my question would be: what would you prefer to be happening that would respect the genre's origins but still allow it to grow?

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

There are plenty of exported musical genres where the connection to the culture of origin was completely sundered. It only takes a few decades for that. Finnish tango has no connection to Argentina. Irish traditional music plays a lot of mazurkas (a traditional Polish form that came over) with no acknowledgement of or even awareness of Poland. Only natural the same would happen to hip-hop. Also, because hip-hop requires as a minimum nothing more than a source of a beat and the ability to do intricate wordplay, and is arguably the most accessible of genres, it has found root in impoverished communities worldwide. People in those communities might not have the relatively privileged background that would allow them to explore the history of the genre and the original culture in the USA that it came out of.

jl6 3y ago

What does it mean for hip-hop to be culturally owned by black folks? What does it mean for non-black hip-hop artists?

jrm4 3y ago
It means that you should acknowledge the culture of the people who started it, not too much more than that? It can get dicey and weird at times, and there's a lot of details that one could get into, and that's good homework to do -- but I definitely find that the vast majority of popular white rappers do a good job of this, e.g. Eminem.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > the people who started it what constitutes the start? DJ Kool Herc? If you asked him, he would list his influences and predecessors... do they not count ? If you try to demarcate some sort of cultural "break" where X becomes Y, how do you do that? And how do you handle subsequent cultural "breaks" that presumably, by the same logic, create something new. How do you handle parallel flows that then converge (such as electro-funk evolving under the influence of kraftwerk, and then becoming the first thing actually named "hip-hop") ? This is all nonsense. Culture is not "owned". Almost all the best culture in the world is mongrel culture that arose from someone who grew up in one culture(s) being exposed to other cultures and mixing them together in a way that generally reflects as much upon the individual as or more than the source cultures. Hip-hop is no different in this respect to any other form of human expression. If there's an art form that seems "pure" to you, the most likely explanation is that you haven't gone far enough into the past to understand how it is also just another mongrel form.
mmx4332 3y ago
It doesn't mean anything. Nobody can "own" something like that. And nobody "owes" anything either to anyone else.

qntty 3y ago

A piece of culture is important in proportion to the reluctance of people to assign an owner to it, whether legal or otherwise. No one would criticize a Frenchman for using Newton's Laws because it belongs to the British. Someone who is really enthusiastic about something will emphasize that it is universally appreciated. E.g., Shakespeare being put on by diverse cultures, Islam trying to spread itself to every corner of the world, Chinese silk being exported to anyone who will buy it, etc. If I was a hip hop artist, there would be no bigger insult than assigning ownership of my art to a specific culture. If it's really so great, it should speak to everyone. If this isn't true of Irish step dancing, it's because it's a relatively trivial art form. You can trivialize hip hop too if you want, but it's not necessarily doing hip hop artists any favors.

jrm4 3y ago
Would you really make this argument with any other cultural contribution? Come on. You think it's insulting to assign the Hula to Hawaiians? This makes NO sense.
- qntty 3y ago
  I don't know the significance of hula, but if it doesn't aspire to be something great, then assigning it to Hawaiians wouldn't be an insult, since it doesn't contradict their own view of it. People will often times contextualize things to downplay it's importance. For example, if I think it's disrespectful to talk about hip hop in a certain way, you can contextualize my view by saying it's an outgrowth of early 21st century American progressive legitimation narratives. I want my views to be universal, but by placing them in the context of a certain country, time, and ideology, they are downplayed.

nsajko 3y ago

> we all subconsciously think of Black American art (including hip-hop) as something to be "taken" or "used" or generally not culturally owned by Black folks, usually Americans It's a bit silly to try to prescribe or restrict "ownership" of culture. Culture is and always has been a product of sharing and mixing of existing traditions. EDIT: I think there's also some hidden issues at play here. You basically want people across the world to directly acknowledge "black citizens of USA" as an ethnicity (to protect "your" culture). Some problems with this: * You don't straight out say this, probably because skin-color-based ethnicity/nationalism is a touchy subject (e.g., white nationalism is basically taboo). But then how can you expect your request to be taken in good faith? * Your request is somewhat US-centric, as a "Black American" ethnicity would after all be just a US minority, presumably not even independent from the mainstream to the degree that, e.g., many European minorities are in their countries. I'll admit I'm putting words into your mouth, but clearly there's lots of things being left unsaid every time these discussions come up, so I don't feel too bad.

jrm4 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hluska 3y ago
You managed to take a simple statement and twist it into something ugly. In doing so, all you did was prove their point. Finally, your finale about how you don’t feel too bad was in unbelievably bad taste. Social skills don’t seem to be your forte.