*#1 PEASANT*

Subject: *#1 PEASANT*
From: GUEST,Johnny O'Brien
Date: 11 Jan 01 - 03:38 PM

Dear Mudcat,

I've been reading through the racist garbage being put forth by *#1 PEASANT* in the Ken Burns Jazz discussion thread and want to say that *#1 PEASANT* speaks only for himself. As an Irish American, as a human being, I deplore the ugly, outright racism of his postings.

Sincerely,

Johnny O'Brien Irish musician

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Jan 01 - 03:50 PM

Hi, Johnny - It probably would have been better to reply to Conrad (Peasant) in the same thread where he posted. To start another thread titled with his user name seems more like an ad hominem attack. He does tend to like to state his opinions provocatively - I'll grant you that.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From:
Date: 11 Jan 01 - 03:53 PM

That's a bit of an understatement...

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 03:54 AM

I am not sure about this, Johnny. I am not being purposely stupid, nor am I defending Conrads statements, but I realy do not understand while you feel he is being racist?

To quote one of his lines - "I do not discount the contribution of African Americans to the development of Jazz but please do not strain the white man or the european ingredients out of the gumbo."

If it said that the black contribution was more important than the white or the white more than the black then yes, it would be racist. I think however that the general drift is that the presenter omitted certain vital components from the development of a particular genre.

To me Conrad simply points out that presenter did not give a true history of jazz. I must admit that, being UK side, I did not see the program so I cannot say whether he did or didn't.

In the interests of understanding can someone point out to me how and where Conrads post was racist???

I do agree with Joe BTW but as this comment is specificaly about Johnny's posting rather than the original it is perhaps better here?

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: Gary T
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 08:00 AM

Dave, I suspect that this is what caught Johnny's eye:

Yes! Why didn't Jazz evolve in africa especially parts of Africa which were multi cultural or connected to trade routes. North Africa near spain would seem to be an ideal candidate. As in early midaeval music you find folk quite well connected via trade and troubadours etc...

Or maybe it was just the water!

(The above excerpts from one post, put here to show context for the following post.)

Or could it be that watermellons of a certain type only native to north america are essential. :) ;/

Presumably the "water" and "watermelon" lines were tongue in cheek. I would guess that the "watermelon" part was more tasteless than racist in its motivation, but it speaks to me of a degree of insensitivity to those who have been victims of racist attitudes, some of which included "watermelon" references.

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 08:41 AM

Ah! Thanks Gary - I understand and don't feel quite as stupid now! I wouldn't have picked up on the "Watermelon" reference. I guess this may be due to geographical and/or cultural differences between UK/USA. (Or due to my lack of knowledge!) The old adage of two countries divided by a common language still applies eh?

Incidentaly, unrelated but on a similar theme, here in the UK, the phrase "Blue eyed soul singer" seems to have come into favour to describe the likes of Robert Palmer, Michael Bolton, Mick Hucknall etc. I guess to avoid black/white sensitivities - Anyone know if this is a US import as well?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 10:18 AM

I have many black friends and they are very proud of their cultural association with watermellon. Watermellon is as much a part of black culture and identity as Jazz. It is a proud and not a derogatory part. Do you know for sure that watermellon has nothing to do with Jazz? I am an includer more than an excluder so would problbly leave it in. The programme we have been discussing proudly notes that some of the negative aspects of african american life have made some of the most powerful contributions to Jazz. According to Burns african americans had some sort of monopoly in the brothel business- something by the way that I doubt....

Watermellon is a proud part of what is proudly known as soul food. It is a proud part of african american culture. When I attend artcar events in public I always give out slices of sweet ice cold watermellon for free. I have done this for years and I assure you that by a landslide the number of those taking slices of watermellon are african americans. Ken Burns has no problem associating Jazz with african americans as an entire group although it is not exactly the case. Many many african americans do not like jazz and it is played and written by many many folk of all other races. Some african americans would consider it negative stereotyping to associate all african americans with jazz.

So what is good for Mr. Burns is good for me.

Simply pointing out the reality of a cultural preference is not in itself negative. If you are what you eat maybe just perhaps you may just sing what you eat. Note the constant reference to gumbo in the Burns programme. Maybe it is the water, watermellon or food.

In any case- eat that watermellon proudly! I get mine direct from the A-rabers horse drawn carts which still are to be found on the streets of Baltimore.

Conrad

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: Gary T
Date: 12 Jan 01 - 10:29 AM

Dave, I remember hearing "blue-eyed soul" in the U.S. in the 60's, referring to white singers of soul music. The Righteous Brothers spring to mind as one example.

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 14 Jan 01 - 08:42 AM

For those interested - Handy Car the Epicetral Shrine of the Helping Hand Vehicular is now on line! He is musical too with lots of hand related songs.... Eventually an external speaker... Click Here for Handy!

Enjoy!

Conrad

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 14 Jan 01 - 08:00 PM

Dave the gnome, if blacks have contributed more than whites to jazz, or vice versa, is it really rascist, these days, to say so? What about blues? I would say that blacks have made a far greater contribution to this tradition than whites, and I can think of contexts in which that point would be worth making. Does this make me a rascist in your book, or am I misunderstanding your post?

(Well put as usual, by the way, Joe.)

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jan 01 - 08:03 PM

"If it said that the black contribution was more important than the white or the white more than the black then yes, it would be racist."

I can't see that there's anything racist about saying that the black contribution to Jazz was more important than the white contribution.

The way Irish music has developed ovwer the past few decades owes quite a lot to influence from the music of other cultures and of people of various colours, but it's still true to say that the Irish contribution is still more important. You could say the same kind of thing about Klezmer music for example. All kinds of influences and borrowings - but the Jewish contribution is still the most significant.

(However anyone who writes "the white man" at this time is intentionally trailing a coat and saying "go on, say I'm racist..." And the best thing to do to that kind of thing here is, turn away from it.)

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: Snuffy
Date: 14 Jan 01 - 08:08 PM

Can blue men sing the whites? (Bonzo Dog Doodah Band)

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 01 - 04:16 AM

Fionn and McGrath, I cannot see anything racist about saying that one ethnic group contributed more than another, if it is true, either. I should have said, in my initial post, that the term could possibly be considered racist by some but I did not. I hold up my hands and agree that my language and discusive skills are not as good as they should be and I will try harder in future.

However as the misunderstanding was my fault I had better explain.

Specific to McGraths comments. Once again I agree that the term is inoffensive, but to say that just because something is true it is OK to say is, I am afraid, not good enough nowadays. It is true that a blackboard is black, that Michael Bolton is a white blues singer and that males who put out fires are firemen, but use the terms at your own peril!

Specific answer to Fionns' question "is it really rascist, these days, to say so? " the answer is, in the eyes of the politcaly correct police, probably yes.

Hope this answers your questions and assuring you that I am neither racist nor overly keen on so called political correctness. I put myself firmly in the camp of one who is genuinely puzzled by it all - or, as Terry Wogan puts it, terminaly confused!

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 01 - 08:34 AM

It is true that a blackboard is black, that Michael Bolton is a white blues singer and that males who put out fires are firemen, but use the terms at your own peril!

I'd risk it any day. I think I would even if I lived in America. Except I've never heard of Michael Bolton.

I wholly agree with avoiding the use of certain words and phrases which have become inextricable linked with prejudice and discrimination and persecution. But outside this I think it's a mistake to focus too much on the words people use - it can divert attention from what really matters, which are the attitudes that can turn he most inoffensive words into weapons.

Any words can be used to insult or threaten. You can say "Have a nice day" and it comes out as a sneer. You can say "Do come back and see us soon" and it's a threat. "Catholic" and "Protestant" can be used with the same kind of violence and hate as any of the hate-words that are rightly excoriated. Going for the attitude that underlies the use of language is harder, and it doesn't lend itself to the legalistic approach. But anything else is just playing silly and dangerous games.

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 01 - 09:11 AM

Too true, Kevin (McG that is) but someone needs to start out to eliminate these silly predjudices somewhere. It is a small inroad into changing peoples attitude when it becomes frowned upon to use these phrases and eventualy these small inroads may help. Unfortunately a number of people have hijacked the PC lobby for their own ends and have not helped anyone by going over the top with stupid rules and so on. I do not know how to address this issue but by discussing it I hope to make my mind up soon.

I think understanding is a good way forward which is why I tend to get involved with the racial/other predjudice threads so I can get a good feel for other views. As well as that I find these discussions on the Mudcat both entertaining and stimulating by allowing like minded friends to argue and disagree without 'falling out'.

Intersting thought just came to me. I, for one, have no objection to someone classing all Mancunians as car thieves and football hooligans in jest, and I guess you can handle "Essex Man/Woman" jokes (how are the gold chains and suntan BTW;-)). I don't know how I would feel if it became constant and malicious though. I wonder???

And you're lucky to have missed Michael Boltons version of "Sexual Healing" BTW. IMO not a patch on Marvyn Gaye.

Another idea - perhaps rather than hijack this thread any further we should use PM or start another? Any views?

Cheers and all the best

DtG

Subject: RE: *#1 PEASANT*
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 01 - 10:57 AM

I don't think there's much difference between us on principle Dave - maybe I'd keep the taboo words and phrases a bit more restricted than you, maybe not. There are words I strongly object to. (One is Caucasian used the way Americans use it, because it enshrines false and deadly racist theories. No problem when it's used to refer to Georgians or Armenians etc from the Caucasus)

As for Essex girl jokes (there aren't as many Essex blok jokes), I don't like them, and I wouldn't like them any moreif they were about some other county.

Essentially they're anti-women. The effect is that a girl from Essex can be made to feel under attack just by someone saying "You're from Essex?" in a particular voice. But changing the name of the county to Lower Suffolk wouldn't help any, if the same jokes were coming out. And if the jokes were about some other county, some other girls woudl be getting hurt by them. And in any case they could be about blondes, or bimbos, or whatever. It's not the words, it's the attitude.

Maybe the place to continue this might be on thesensitivity thread?, There have been a few threads about all this in the Mudcat vaults, where it is always fun to root around.