Don’t call me white, call me Tom
Tuesday 28 April, 2009 - 24 comments“You,” a fellow delegate at the NUS conference told me, “are white…”
When did we get to the point that it became normal to identify others by their skin colour?
I am not white. My skin may well be coloured white, through low levels of pigmentation (melanin) in my skin cells. But this does not make me, as an individual, “white”. Indeed, you might as well call me blue because of my eye colour or dark blonde because of my hair.
Why do I draw this distinction? Simple. Nobody is a colour. Nobody’s personality is predetermined by the level of melanin in their skin, or indeed by their race. Unlike gender or sexuality, race cannot, in itself, have an influence on one’s behaviour. Nevertheless, many officious groups continue to classify people by their race or skin colour, and not all of them are the usual racist and extremist suspects such as the BNP.
The NUS attempts to address racism by being racially selective itself. The NUS has a ‘black students’ campaign officer for students of ‘African, Asian and Caribbean descent’, but oddly no representative for ‘white’ or ‘European’ students. Racism cuts all ways, regardless of colour and race, and it is extremely sad that the NUS provides support only for a selection of those affected.
The problem isn’t black and white however, the problem is “black”, “white”, “brown”, “asian”, “mixed” and “other” (not forgetting the myriad of further racial categorisations). The process of labelling – effectively “boxing” – people into various categories that they have no control over does nothing to help the fight against racism. Neither does it actually empower people with anything. Instead it burdens them with whatever associations may go hand-in-hand with those racial terms (for good or ill).
You do not need to go far to find colour or race mistakenly associated with cultural stereotypes. This practise is well-established and is even used by respected bodies. The BBC’s digital radio stations are a perfect example of the nonsense of applying racial classification to musical genres.
BBC 1Xtra’s brief is to play “Black Music”. What is black music? There are many DJs and songs by groups with various skin colours played on the station (do I even need to mention Westwood and the ever-resurgent Eminem?). Although the title “BBC1 Urban” would describe the mix of music on the channel much better, the BBC has directly tied the channel to a skin tone instead. The Mobo’s - Music of black origin awards make a very similar mistake.
The BBC repeats this fallacy in regards to race with its “Asian Network” radio station. Why the Beeb thinks that it can lump together those with links to the largest continent on earth is beyond me.
Farrokh Busara, Reginald Dwight and David Jones, under the names Freddy, Elton and Bowie respectively, became three of the biggest singers in British Rock and Roll without using their arbitrary birth-born labels. Who cares if one of the three had darker skin colour than the other two? How can we seriously ask the question whether or not they were playing “white” or “black” music? The question that will bother most people is ‘who is the best musician?’
“Race-orientated” music and a race-obsessed society reinforces the suggestion that it is normal to think of people in terms of their skin-colour or racial background. It also suggests that elements of music, culture and behaviour are somehow naturally shared amongst people of a certain skin tone or race. They aren’t. The process of boxing people within certain racial identities is itself what exerts pressure to conform to racial stereotypes.
Whilst some may say that the force to conform to stereotypes only has seemingly innocuous effects, influencing choices of musical genres, clothes and turn of phrase, the creation of divergent social groups can also contribute to greater tension between races.
The racist BNP want racial identities to remain in the forefront of people’s minds however. The party ties racial identity with national identity in an attempt to obfuscate the issue. A recently leaked BNP training manual told its activists to describe any British citizen without white skin as ‘black residents’ or ‘racial foreigners’.
The BNP relishes the opportunity to be able to point towards different racial stereotypes to support their view that certain races cannot integrate and as such should be ‘repatriated’ from the country as soon as possible.
Skin colour never determines your nationality; national and geographical identity differs considerably to race. In this day and age it is possible to be a citizen of, or hold an attachment to almost any region of the world.
The recent St George’s Day celebrations in England have demonstrated how regional identities can have the effect of bringing people together. Racial identities, on the other hand are so varied that they cannot be shared by all. This is further complicated by the fact that you are stuck with the racial identity you were born with.
We cannot defeat the white nationalism until we stand together as one people.
So long as we continue to arbitrarily label people “black”, “white”, “asian” etc. purely upon their appearance then we will not be able to destroy the (false) stereotypes that have built up around such labels.
The closer towards a truly colour-blind society we get, the more and more unreasonable the BNP’s assertion that race is the true measure of “Britishness” will become.
The next time someone describes you as being a colour, stop them, explain to them your skin may be that colour but that you are not a colour.
The next time someone says that you are a certain race, whatever it be, inform them either of your regional identity or membership of the most important race of all – the human race.
Next time, be open to who you really are. Demonstrate your real personality and tell them your name. If you are not happy with it, you can always change it in some way.
Changing your skin colour or race is much more difficult.
Related
- The illusion of freedom Oct. 5, 2009
- Backing black in English cricket April 27, 2010
- When the livin’ is easy… Oct. 5, 2009
- Paris is burning all night long March 16, 2010
Comments
BNP
-
When the livin’ is easy… James Appleton
Monday 5 October, 2009 - 2 commentsFollowing the three month summer break, the comment team provides a swift recap of all the main events to make you laugh, cry, and burst with righteous indignation.
Race
-
Yes (We Can) Prime Minister Zahra Ullah
Tuesday 16 March, 2010Britain is unlikely to elect a leader from an ethnic minority until groups fight institutionalised bias
-
Paris is burning all night long Mark Ablett
Tuesday 16 March, 2010The ethnic tension and poverty to be seen in Paris' suburbs can be compared to Britain's own social problems
Comment
-
PC gone sane Chris O'Brien
Wednesday 23 June, 2010
The unease related to building a memorial to Bomber Command is justified by the effect their actions had in World War II
-
The Boar: Reflections on a three-year stint Chris Browne
Wednesday 23 June, 2010All good things must come to an end. But that surely means no bad thing …
This is ridiculous to the point of offensive. But thankfully, it plays in our favour, because your utter ignorance demonstrates the continuing need for liberation campaigns.
Firstly, let me pick out one of your more gut-wrenching quotes: “Un¬≠like gen¬≠der or sex¬≠u¬≠al¬≠i¬≠ty, race can¬≠not, in it¬≠self, have an in¬≠flu¬≠ence on one‚Äôs be¬≠haviour.” So my gender and my sexuality affect the way I behave but my race does not? Care to tell me how? Is it that my gender will determine the things I like and aspire towards but my race will not? How about my sexuality?
Actually all these things- race, gender, sexuality and class will affect our behaviour, not because there is something engrained in us as a result of any of those things but because of where we sit in relation to oppressive forces.
In a racist society, where black people are seven times more likely than white to be stopped and searched by the police (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069791.stm), where black lecturers and academic staff earn 12% less than their white counterparts (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=169395§ioncode=26) and where black people are 44% more likely to be detained under the mental health act and where racist attacks are commonplace, of course people are going to behave differently. I haven’t even yet begun to go into the issues relating to criminal convictions, dropout rates in schools and wider pay gaps. (Similar applies with sexuality and gender, but your article is about race so I’ll focus on that.)
This is precisely the reason that black representation and celebration of black people is so desparately necessary. The barriers to participation from open, tacit and institutional prejudices are so rife that without them the specific needs and interests of black people will be utterly ignored.
You claim that racial identities cannot unite people and yet, astonishingly they do, precisely due to the reasons I’ve outlined. They don’t unite people on the grounds of their character, but they do unite people based on the commonalities of the oppression they face. We do not live in a colour-blind society, that is self-evident, and this very fact makes clear the need to unite black people to fight against racism.
By far, however, your most reviling comment was “racism cuts all ways”. Really? Really?! Have you ever been turned away from a job for being white? Ever been heckled or beaten up in the streets for being white? Ever been questioned by the police for being white?
If the limit you can fathom to the ‘racism’ faced by white people is that there is no active effort to represent white people in the NUS or at music awards, then you’ve obviously missed a very important point.
Furthermore, your glorification of St George’s Day and of regional identities seem to suggest nationalism as a cure for racism. While you rally against the BNP, your views would hardly be out of place with in their ranks. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsA_Xko4tqM)
How dare you as a white man lecture black people on how to overcome racism?
Your near incessant whining about how there is no men’s rep and no white rep is getting beyond funny; it’s downright offensive.
Shame on the Boar for publishing this!
“So my gen¬≠der and my sex¬≠u¬≠al¬≠i¬≠ty af¬≠fect the way I be¬≠have but my race does not? Care to tell me how?”
Elementary my Dear Watson. Firstly, your gender will effect your ability to reproduce (and will lead to differing usage of one’s sexual organs, to put it bluntly). Arguably levels of hormones may play a part in behaviour differentiation, but these may not necessarily affect the behaviours of all people of a certain gender. Secondly, very simply, one’s sexuality will effect one’s choice of whom one wishes to have relationships with.
Whereas all racial behavioural stereotypes are socially constructed. People are not “made” to like the certain things their race may be associated with.
“How dare you as a white man lec¬≠ture black peo¬≠ple on how to over¬≠come racism?”
So, I am the wrong colour in order to talk about one of the most important issues that affects, and has affected the world for a long time? Should, heaven forbid, only people of a certain skin tone be interested in thinking about how we defeat the menace that is racism then we would live in a society that isn’t fully behind the mission to do so. Further division, nay, further segregation would result.
Some might say that it is racist in itself to disallow a certain race from talking about certain issues. The right to free speech should be open to all, regardless of their appearance.
“Shame on the Boar for pub¬≠lish¬≠ing this!”
Yes. Shame on freedom of speech! Shame on free thought! How dare someone write an opinion piece in the comment section. Its unheard of! [/sarcasm]
You’ve failed to address any of my substantive points, but I’ll address your many unsubstantiated ones anyway.
Of course anybody can talk about racism. And of course all races should unite to drive it out. But your article specifically criticises BBC1 Extra, MOBO and the NUS Black Students Campaigns which are all black-led initiatives for self-empowerment against racism. Again, how dare you, as a white man, lecture black people on how to overcome racism? What’s more, how do you do it in the most condescending and ignorant way of telling black people that race is irrelevant?
And yes, shame on the Boar for publishing this. The Boar gets lots of pieces submitted all the time and only publishes the most worthy ones. By putting this drivel on their pages, they lend your views the credibility you never get when you jettison off on your usual soapbox rants. I don’t want to get into a debate over freedom of speech here, not because I don’t want to have that debate with you (believe me, I do), but I’d rather you stuck to the point and actually addressed some of the real criticisms of your ‘article’.
“By putting this driv¬≠el on their pages, they lend your views the cred¬≠i¬≠bil¬≠i¬≠ty you never get when you jet¬≠ti¬≠son off on your usual soap¬≠box rants.”
In case you didn’t know Lev, I was Deputy Comment Editor for the Boar between November 2007 and November 2008. Most of my “soapbox rants” as you so eloquently put the have actually been in the Boar, rather than elsewhere.
I do not attack all “black-led” (what a cringing term, as it disregards any idea of individuality, and supports the false pretence that people of a certain colour are homogeneous) initiatives. I attack all initiatives that attempt to further divide race into an issue of black versus white, Asian versus African and European; such terms are archaic and irrelevant. Furthermore, I am not “telling black peo¬≠ple that race is ir¬≠rel¬≠e¬≠vant”, I am telling all people that race is irrelevant. The hurdle is for all of us in society to cross.
So you are telling all people that race is irrelevant. So the crux of the point stands. Can you imagine any black person, or any person who actually daily suffers from and experiences racism, believing that race is irrelevant?
Black-led initiatives remain an effective way of addressing racism because the people who actually experience racism know what they want and how to overcome to. I cannot, and wouldn’t dare presume to be able to, speak on behalf of black people, but I can refer to my own experiences in the LGBTQA* movement. We’ve fought to bring on to the agenda issues like trans access needs with toilets and university identification, issues of discrimination faced by gay and bisexual men in the National Health Service and bullying suffered by lesbians. Can you imagine a straight non-trans person knowing how to address these issues without us telling them? More importantly, can you imagine them even knowing that these issues exist unless we had the necessary representation to tell them? Of course not.
Much the same is true with race. We have autonomous (that is straight white man-excluded) campaigns because people who do not suffer from that discrimination are not the ones best placed to deal with it. Race is highly relevant to these campaigns.
Race is also highly relevant to racism. We don’t overcome it by saying that ‘race is irrelevant’, that’s just sweeping it under the carpet. We overcome it by recognising that race very much affects people and their lives. It should be self-explanatory, even tautologous, to say that race is relevant to racism.
The reason you think that it’s irrelevant is because really when you go for a job or apply to a university or meet with the police (if you ever do) or go to a GP or even walk down the street, race is irrelevant to you. But it is not irrelevant to people who suffer from racism.
You need to seriously revise your views.
*lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and asexual. http://www.warwickpride.org
Yep. I do know the the acronym. You guys are missing on a U - Undefined - then you’d have the whole set!
Acronyms aside, have I ever said that people of all races are subject to the same level of racism? No. In a nation where there are high levels of hostility towards, for example, people of Eastern-European origin, how can you seriously say that having a “black officer” is sufficient in the campaign against racism. What about people of Asian origin who don’t know if a black “liberation” campaign is meant to represents them.
The point of my article is that race should be irrelevant, not that in today’s society it has no impact on actions of individuals. Simply because racists exist and those on the receiving end of attacks are harmed does not mean that single-race groups should be created in an attempt to combat racism. Two wrongs do not make a right. A considered approach would result in actions to bring people together, not keep them apart.
I will not “se¬≠ri¬≠ous¬≠ly re¬≠vise” my view that we have to work together as one in the fight against racism. This involves taking into account the life experiences of ANYONE that has experienced racism. To exclude anyone from consultation because they are of a certain colour of race is then another case of racism.
Nice points Guys!
Lev- It is in comment though, so they can pretty much write what they like and it doesn’t necessarily reflect the views of the paper. I say write your own article, mate. They’d be hard pushed not to publish it. You write well sir, very well indeed.
I say get a t√™te √† t√™te going on this…
Oh, and p.s.
“Your near in¬≠ces¬≠sant whin¬≠ing about how there is no men’s rep and no white rep is get¬≠ting be¬≠yond funny; it’s down¬≠right of¬≠fen¬≠sive.”
I don’t want a “white rep” or a “men’s rep”. A Welfare Officer alone should be plenty to deal with issues of racism and bigotry. I am against the creation of posts for people simply due to their appearance, gender or sexuality. I thought you might have grasped that if you’d read my article thoroughly.
Except a Welfare Officer isn’t enough. For a start you could potentially be Welfare Officer and - to be frank, I would have little confidence in your abilities. Black students are under-represented within unions - and as anecdotal evidence from the Black Students Campaign has shown, where black officer posts have been created, participation of black students increases, and campaigns such as anonymous marking, a prayer room in every college, recognising black history, and fighting racism, are prioritised. We know the issues of discrimination and inequality in wider society - in our students’ unions, we’ve found a way of furthering equality - and you’re against it… Shame on you.
As Comment editor and the person who actually decided to publish this article, I thought I would just make a point about this. Whether or not you agree with Tom’s view, it is one side of a many-faceted debate and, as he points out, his opinion; while you have obviously taken certain aspects of it to heart, I saw nothing downright prejudiced and therefore no reason to withold publication of it. It is not my place to fix an ideological stance for the Boar. People are perfectly welcome to make up their own minds about whether or not it is credible and, as an article, this piece is well-written and presents an interesting view.
I would personally be sad if the only pieces we put into the section were pieces that would meet with widespread approval - that would make us very dull. If you are strongly opposed to Tom’s views, as you seem to be, then you are more than welcome to write a piece of your own.
“No¬body is a colour. No¬body’s per¬son¬al¬i¬ty is pre¬de¬ter¬mined by the level of melanin in their skin, or in¬deed by their race.” Thanks for pointing out the obvious. There’s actually no such thing as race, it’s a myth. Race, in its modern context, is a social construct; the creation of colonisers and imperialists – a concept largely shaped by the slave trade. The very conception of dividing people by race began with the slave trade. However, to mainstream society, race appears an entirely real concept; it’s a social construct so powerful that to simply dismiss it would ignore the strikingly apparent. “The NUS at¬tempts to ad¬dress racism by being racial¬ly se¬lec¬tive it¬self.”
The NUS Black Students’ Campaign is an autonomous section of NUS, it’s autonomous and its direction is decided by its members – students of African, Arab, Asian and Caribbean descent. “The NUS has a ‘black stu¬dents’ cam¬paign of¬fi¬cer for stu¬dents of ‘African, Asian and Caribbean de¬scent’, but oddly no rep¬re¬sen¬ta¬tive for ‘white’ or ‘Eu¬ro¬pean’ stu¬dents.”
I think this is your most ridiculous statement so far. We live in a society where black students face discrimination throughout education: despite high achievements on entry, they leave school with lower grades and are more likely to be excluded. African-Caribbean boys are 3 times more likely to be permanently excluded from school than white children for misdemeanours of similar severity. Black students face discrimination in admissions to elite universities and are awarded lower marks where anonymous marking is not implemented. Black children are 5 times less likely to be considered “gifted or talented” compared to white children. Meanwhile black graduates are 4 times more likely to be unemployed than white graduates – thus being saddled with debts for longer. Within 5 years of leaving college, black students can expect to earn 9% less than white peers for the same level of work. Job applicants with an African name are 25% less likely, while those with a Muslim name are 18% less likely, to get an interview than those with a British sounding name. And at universities and colleges; black staff are more likely to be cleaners than lecturers.
Being black shouldn’t be an issue. I’m not black but I can see that in society, being black, is an issue. Why can’t you see it? “Racism cuts all ways, re¬gard¬less of colour and race” Can you please elaborate? Are white people 14 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police? Are white people 3 times more likely to be unemployed? Are white people 3 times more likely to become homeless? Do white people earn 9% less? Do white people face discrimination throughout education? “Nei¬ther does it ac¬tu¬al¬ly em¬pow¬er peo¬ple with any¬thing. In¬stead it bur¬dens them with what¬ev¬er as¬so¬ci¬a¬tions may go hand-in-hand with those racial terms”
Why? Is Notting Hill Carnival is disempowering? Reggae? Celebrating Caribbean food? Why are you insisting on stripping people of their identity? It’s unfortunate you don’t have the honesty to come clean – what you really seem to be against is “multi-culturalism.”
“We can¬not de¬feat the white na¬tion¬al¬ism until we stand to¬geth¬er as one peo¬ple.” So multi-culturalism and minority identities are out and let the dominant, white, heteronormative, euro-centric “one people” culture override everything else? “The clos¬er to¬wards a truly colour-blind so¬ci¬ety we get, the more and more un¬rea¬son¬able the BNP’s as¬ser¬tion that race is the true mea¬sure of “British¬ness” will be¬come.” So, are we supposed to ignore the fact that society is anything but colour-blind?
“Why? Is Not¬≠ting Hill Car¬≠ni¬≠val is dis¬≠em¬≠pow¬≠er¬≠ing? Reg¬≠gae? Cel¬≠e¬≠brat¬≠ing Caribbean food? Why are you in¬≠sist¬≠ing on strip¬≠ping peo¬≠ple of their iden¬≠ti¬≠ty?”
Last time I checked, the Caribbean was a geographic area, not a race. As I say, there are identities based upon geographies that go beyond race. Anyone can adopt a Caribbean lifestyle, regardless of their skin colour. Indeed here are many people in the Caribbean who aren’t necessarily “black”. The number of people who celebrate Notting Hill who are of various races is tremendous.
When it comes to “multiculturalism”, it depends how you define the term. ‘Tis a good thing so long as you do not end up with people living different lives in disregard of others. Consequently you need to have a common language known by all and an overarching belief in communication with others regardless of appearance in place. I don’t know what “dom¬≠i¬≠nant, white, het¬≠eronor¬≠ma¬≠tive, eu¬≠ro-‚Äãcen¬≠tric ‚Äúone peo¬≠ple‚Äù cul¬≠ture” exactly is, but if you know my cultural, social, religious etc. etc. way of life then I don’t think you could exactly call it “traditionally British” (to use a slightly easier-on-the-ear-phrase).
Oh, and I love Reggae. Must I be a certain race to do so? No. Culture does not equal race.
Hi Thomas,
I’m quite interested in your suggestion for another title other than ‘Black Music’ that would unite Reggae, RnB, Blues, Hip hop, Spirituals, Afro-Carribean, Soul etc.
Thank you! Best regards, Katerina
Hi Katerina,
First off, cheers for the “thank you” rather than a “shame on you” for once! A friendly tone is appreciated!
Okay, you raise a very important point there. Should we group together different forms of music because of the racial origin (rather than any other characteristic?) of the original creators of it?
Now, lets take the oldest examples of music that you note - that of “spirituals”. Now, these are often referred to as “Negro Spirituals” - as they are in a book of them I have in my hand now, one of only two of the music books in Warwick’s library devoted to such tunes (I took the book out a couple of weeks ago and have played it a bit, but now it seems to be of even greater use). Now, as most people know, these were born out of the plantations. What led to the creation of such beautiful tunes? Was it skin colour? Or was it circumstance, talent and othe influences?
“On the plantation, the makers of these songs were slaves, hirelings, chattels, with minds and bodies subject to the wills and whims of their masters. At their own “meetings”, often held in secret, they were utterly themselves, and thoughts and impulses and emotions burst forth with an exuberance all the more terrific by reason of having been suppressed. This gave to the spiritual an intensity of projection comparable to no other folk expression in the world.” (Negro Spirituals, R. Nathaniel Dett p. viii.)
What we are hearing in such tunes as “Go tell it on the Mountain” is the creation of a group of individuals facing circumstances that have little or no match today. We can only imagine the conditions that such slaves faced, but the beauty and complexity of the tunes that were created were born out of all manner of influences and difficulties - for example the conditions they were under, the influence of Christianity and the musical traditions of peoples from all over West Africa, as well as European linguistic and musical influences.
To denigrate the complexity of this story and simply say that it is “black” music - almost to say it is the natural music of people of a certain colour is false. That’s why the common term itself, “Negro Spirituals” although commonly used to describe the genre is not an effective term to describe the music. “Plantation spirituals” would a much better term for the genre, giving far more explanation to the origin of the music.
For many of the genres you have listed I have already given another word to over-all describe their their origin. For blues, RnB, Hip Hop and Soul the only possible term that can be used as a description of the origin of the music is “Urban music” as they deal with the trials and tribulations of modern life in the city - a far cry from the plantations.
However, to merge such severely differing music genres is in itself a fallacy. Although there are influences and stylistic developments between the various musical genres, all styles of music keep evolving from the last, regardless of the colour of previous musicians. You can easily argue that there are influences of big band music on blues and jazz, as well as the influence of blues on modern-day electropunk.
Instead, when we focus on the race of the people behind music we are driven to the situation that people may listen to music associated with their race. Why don’t people talk about the colour of the people who invented the instruments that people play? Colour itself is always irrelevant. As I have explained in my article, stereotypes are driven further by the official categorisation of music as “white” or “black”, when this may not necessarily be true…
The founding musicians behind Rock - Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Little Richard, Bo Diddley and B. B. King - were all of black skin tone, however it is somehow seen as a “white” genre now. Why isn’t Rock and Roll on the list above of genres you would associate with “black” people? Well, once again this is simply due to the stereotypes wrapped up around in the genres. Rock and roll was such a success when acts like Elvis started covering the hits of artists who hadn’t the fortune to have white skin (such it was at the time), that it was promptly associated with “white” acts as well.
As for Reggae, well there is a rich history behind that as well. As luck has it, I also took out a book “Mango Time - Folk Songs of Jamaica” (no mention of colour or race there, just region and genre). It mentions a wide range of influences, from the “Arawak songs of the Tainos” (the first people to settle in Jamaica), a Spanish influence since their landing their in 1494, English settlement from 1655, suppression of slaves and Rasta culture and Creole language amongst other things. Reggae itself evolved from rocksteady, in turn evolving from Ska which develops from Jamaican Folk (or “mento”).
The evolution of such a musical form is, therefore considerably different to that of Hip Hop and Rock, even though they share similar stylistic influences - i.e. plantation spirituals.
Therefore, so many of the songs we here today, if not all, are classifiable as “black” if link them back to genres such as plantation spirituals and simply consider the colour of those that founded such types of music. However, you could do the opposite and call almost all modern music “white” if one was to link music back to European folk or Baroque and classify these as “white” genres. To do so is not only an absurdity, but it ignores the complexity of the historical development of such music.
Ultimately, skin colour has not been the influence on the creation of such genres of music. In each case we see individual musicians who had multiple influences, many geographic and historical, which lead to the creation of new avenues for music that could be used by any musician of any colour. The issue of slavery and segregation did indeed influence spirituals and blues, but the universality of music means that these were influenced by music from various races and such genres were neither confined to musicians of a certain colour for long.
It would be impossible to find music today that is only of “black” origin and those that are “white”, not least of all the genres of Reggae, RnB, Blues, Hip hop, Afro-‚ÄãCarribean and Soul. There has been so much interbreeding of musical styles that any musician worth anything draws influence from all quarters. Consequently, if Radio 1 Xtra wants to play different music to Radio One it should just be clear what elements it is focussing on, whether its hip hop, blues, soul whatever. The idea of the existence of “black” or “white” music is just a myth.
Hope that explains the complexity of the whole topic as clearly as possible. Ultimately there is no classification that can easily encompass all of those genres, except perhaps “post-plantation spirituals music” due to some of the influences. Nevertheless, almost all genres seen today will have the same categorisation, regardless of musician skin colour.
All the best, Tom
Hey Tom, a musical point rather than a racial one here. To classify R ‘n’ B, soul and blues as ‘urban music’ is to massively misrepresent them and, without wanting to make assumptions about your musical tastes, suggests you haven’t listened to them that much. I would find it difficult to classify Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson or Ray Charles as ‘urban’ artists.
I agree that perhaps calling it ‘black music’ is inaccurate too, when we have R ‘n’ B artists like Daniel Bedingfield and soul singers like Jamie Lidell and Joss Stone. Nevertheless, the preferred term, as the MOBO awards suggest, is Music Of Black Origin - origin being the key term here. Of course, as you point out, rock could certainly be considered to be of black origin and by extension all popular music today. Nevertheless, I see no problem with associated the music that the black people feel has most identified as embodying their history with that specific race, in the same way that non-Hispanics are welcome to play Spanish music without us ceasing to identify it as Spanish.
Lol. I am a fan of Blues - Big Bill Broonzy, Jools Holland, Cream are amongst my favourite acts - I was talking about a different description of “urban” than that which we see now. Really just a geographical one really; a description of where the music came from. Now I realise how confusing that is when compared to modern “urban music”!
Just one point though - “Spanish” is once again a geographic descriptor, not necessarily a racial one.
Fair point. Nonetheless, I still think that races do have specific cultures that they proudly associate with, and I think if anything it helps strengthen racial ties if a white man like me can enjoy that type of music and not tiptoe around the racial connotations of it.
Lol. This text space is getting smaller and smaller!
I don’t believe that I am tip-toeing. Rather, I am understanding the true nature of the music than applying an easy, but arbitrary title to it. Anyhoo. We can always agree to disagree.
Hey Tom,
Thanks for this. I really understand your point that race should not be used as classification. It’s been argued that the term and idea of race is old-fashioned, made-up and I would agree with that.
However, having the MOBOs for instance celebrates the achievements of a usually misrepresented group in our society. The media perpetuates the idea of race too much and tends to stereotype young black men, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It’s a sensitive issue, but I’m not sure that we should just drop skin colour as a description. There’s nothing wrong with having yellow, grey, white or black skin colour.
You are white Tom, but there should be no prejudice attached to that description. Basing and judging people upon their skin colour is far too simple and ignores all other identities they may have. Instead, one could assume certain things about you by the course you read at university, the political party you support, your hobbies or the clubs and societies you are a member of.
My skin is white. I’ve said that enough times and you can say it as many times as you wish, but that does not make ME white.* Just because the dominant cultural norm is to relate people to one’s skin colour (rather than lets say hair colour or eye colour) does not necessarily mean that it is conducive to the most cohesive of society possible.
I’m glad you brought up the idea of a “self-fulfilling prophecy” in regards to the MOBOs. I hadn’t thought of using that term before, but it is particularly apt in that the MOBOs do not represent “black” music, and rather imposes a cultural norm on people of a certain skin colour. Surely the best action is to stop “misrepresenting” racial groups in the first place. The creation of such awards lead to further misrepresentation in their narrow classifications of musical genres.