From: Fellha~ol.com Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:38:36 -0500 Subject: re:art and culture
some notes cast into the ongoing firestorm.
i am _not_ saying that white boys can't play the blues. i do it pretty well myself, and so do a lot of other folks. what i am saying is that it is primarily an african-american form, and it's inconceivable that it could have arisen and developed without a whole racial and cultural context. africans did not play the blues (until recently!) as bbean points out, and it has always been a matter of cultural interchange. but then the whole concept of "race" in america has little or nothing to do with biology and everything to do with forms of oppression, exploitation, and self-definition.
that's why i disagree with jim, who says he has no race. i think that means you're white! (_our_ race is invisible to ourselves.) but having a race is not a matter of personal decision; it's a matter of cultural organization. one can claim all dy not to have a race, but if one is white one will continue to reap all sorts of structural benefits from it (start with poor black folks as a source of cheap labor that allows us to buy cheap burgers or whatever).
what i _am_ saying is what several people have said: that it's one thing to use and extend the form in creative directions, another to _appropriate_ someone else's cultural productions without understanding and deep self-reflection. but i also agree that art speaks across the lines that divide us, and it's obvious that the blues does!