3 ms·
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 Frenchm
by 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 agoWould 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 agoI 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.