| |
|
Hurrah for toksik and Illmatic, who have expressed things I've been trying to get at while reading this thread with growing fury.
Bruno, shit or get off the pot. Having questioned everyone else's motivations while conveniently bunching yours under some 'common sense'/'back to basics' smokescreen*, *and* assumed all-around whiteness in which you figure somehow as a guiding light of 'authenticity'/'holiness' it really is way overdue for you to tell us where you figure in these categories you're so keen to draw up.
Or, if they don't apply to you in such limiting ways, if your 'blackness' or 'whiteness' isn't relevant, perhaps you'd like to explain why you're applying these categories to everyone else?
Perhaps you are, in fact, Michael Jackson. 
I'm not sure how relevant a roll-call of the non-white contributors to this thread is, as in one sense its answering your argument on its own debased terms. Similarly with, as I do below, mentioning my gender identifications, in responding to your points about women and music.
Part of me passionately believes, and loves this thread for demonstrating, that these questions should not be loci for 'white' v. 'black' or 'male' v. 'female' discussions, partly because those terms are meainingless in the way you've set them up, and partly because if we can only argue along identity lines, we're fucked.
However, in your posts I see absolutely no understanding of how power relations work, beyond a very crude top/bottom arrangment, and another part of me feels that it becomes, as Illmatic notes above, important to respond to such crass generalisations by insisting on the diversity and specificity of the people you're dealing with (here. in the world in general)
and I guess it might just demonstrate to you that there is no 'objective standard' of quality, and that your didactic pronouncements are pointless when you don't seem particularly interested in engaging with the reality of your interlocutors. That these things are way more complex and nuanced than you think.
As Ill says above, people very rarely enjoy being told what to think, especially in such a way as to deny other viewpoints.
So I will add to this that as someone who grew up very much female-identified, I particlarly don't enjoy being told how encounters between women and music work by someone who self-identifies as male and with little experience of women.
I've found that part of your argument incredibly difficult to engage with precisely *because* when I read statements like From my (obviously limited) experience of women, women tend to like mostly shitty music., my poor little female-bred brains folds in on itself.
Picking this one apart 'slightly', what this statement actually says
the few women I have encountered have not shared my music taste
Which is an entirely less controversial and misogynist statement. But you extrapolate from your singular, particular viewpoint and experience to a profoundly offensive conclusion.
Had is ever occurred to you that your sister might define her music taste precisely in opposition to yours? That, as in many other areas, we used music taste to send messages about allegiance and our personal qualities. Actually, reading your posts, it seems pretty evident that you're aware of this in yourself.
You seem perfectly comfortable in ascribing *none* of complexity of taste to your mum and sister that you claim as your right. You have this long litany of reasons and passions behind your musical tastes, but they are merely 'women ...[who] like shitty music'.
Is is possible for you to see why this strikes alot of people as deeply unpleasant?
Bruno, when you're wondering why there's so much disagreement from people here, has it not occurred to you once to think, 'hey, maybe I should go back an re-examine my positions on race and gender, and see what's attracting so much criticism.'
Oh, and commonly/self-id'ing, I wouldn't be considered 'white' or 'black', so where do my responses fit in your thesis. (If yr British, I'm British Asian, if yr from the US, South Asian. These terms are not monoliths, with one agreed significant meaning. Ever.)
*am I the only UK person finding this stuff weirdly
reminiscent of 90s UK Conservative party rhetoric? |
|
|
