Just to be clear, your first statement was much more general than your second (do vs play), and I'd say you'd know plenty of counterexamples to it. There are certain traditions that are more culturally sensitive than others, where it wouldn't be dumb for the members of the culture to state that you shouldn't do it if you're not part of the culture. Even in Irish music, there's generally an understanding that you shouldn't put yourself out there as an expert on Irish traditional music unless you're actually an expert on Irish traditional music. Many people who are part of the tradition look down on people who are not versed in the tradition, but are claiming (or presenting themselves) as if they were. I think that's the distinction that's important when talking about cultural appropriation.

Substitute 'misguided' for 'dumb' and count that the force of 'generally' is to allow the possibility of exceptions, and it's generally wonderful to play the music of other nations, ethnicities, etc. The rest is talk. Want 'cultural appropriation'? Here we go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNaexHNq0Lc

Mostly I was responding to the implication that, "If you disagree with my opinion you must be 'pretty dumb.' "

As has been suggested in comments, there are situations and opinions that diverge widely (and sometimes vociferously) on when and how to enter into another culture's music, dance, regalia, etc.—I wouldn't agree that any of the perspectives are "pretty dumb."

Them's my thoughts.

Steve

_________________
Alcohol is the liquid version of PhotoShop

My pleasure!

It's been an education for me as well. I was pretty naive about the implications of a non-native making native flutes when I first started out, and when it became a viable business for me there was strong motivation for all sorts of justifications which could bias my viewpoint. It had become my sole livelihood, and I was reluctant to look too hard at the ethics once I found myself confronted with them. And I know quite a few NA flute makers who still simply refuse to consider any possibility that there might be an ethical question at all. But I will say this: the majority of makers that I knew who made these flutes did so because they loved and honored the Native American culture, even if it was within certain limits. Our current culture does not always give a sense of continuity to those who live within it. I would even go so far as to describe it as "bankrupt" in so many ways. Superficial, homogenized, throwaway values abound, and for a lot of people the beauty and continuity of Native American traditions really spoke to them. I've heard Native Americans justifiably criticize non-natives who "play Indian", but there are a portion of them who are not playing at it. They really go deep with complete sincerity.

But I have also encountered a lot of people "playing Indian", not realizing how offensive this might be. For myself, I was never into the NA flute as anything other than a cool instrument, but I did my share of borrowed iconography on some of them until at some point it started to feel contrived. And as the admin of a forum where these topics were often discussed, I began to see how complex this issue was and how little self-examination I had really engaged in. The more I thought about it and talked to others, ironically the less clear it became.

Given the cultural mash-ups that are always taking place throughout human history, it can be difficult to distinguish exploitation from inspiration, paying tribute versus profiting by, etc.. I think it takes a very sensitive person to try to navigate these things. I tend to give people a lot of slack simply because I've been on both sides of the fence and I know that well-meaning people might be offending without intent. So discussing the issues without labeling anyone or putting them "in the wrong" is valuable. Human ego being what it is, it is always better to gently persuade than to tell anyone that they are stupid or wrong. If we inflame someone's ego or sense of pride it'll more than likely just offend them to such a pitch that they dismiss us completely and become even more fixed in their views.

That's the inherent danger of "opinions" of all kinds. An opinion is a fixed viewpoint that implies that we have all the information and have considered an argument from every possible vantage point (which is impossible). Human beings don't tend to like gray areas or paradoxes. Our minds like black or white, yes or no, right or wrong. Sadly, nothing in life actually occupies those extreme ends of the spectrum. So I try to avoid getting too dug into any viewpoint. But it can make for some insipid dinner conversations

_________________
Geoffrey Ellis Flutes

I'm happy to reiterate that I think claiming that only people who ARE x can DO X is dumb. It's a value judgement I suppose, and I'm making it. It's a dumb position. It flirts with outright racism. And it's indefensible, in the sense that it imagines a kind of authenticity that simply does not and cannot exist in the real world. Can the people who speak your language with as lightly different inflection play the music? Or are they not real? Can people listen if they aren't one of the real people? Or can only the real people listen? If one of the real people, say, joins the army or goes off to college or marries a non real person, can he or she still play the music? Its dumb because it's self defeating. Its dumb like repeatedly stepping on a shovel even though the handle pops up and whacks you in the face. Not every human act is equal.

You can, it seems to me, insist that people who want to do X should apprentice themselves in as serious way--that's an entirely different story and an entirely different question.

In my line of work, history, would you entertain the claim that only people who are women can study the history of women? Only people who are christian can study the history of Christianity? Only farmers can study farmers? That would be a dumb position, since manifestly, you in the present are NEVER the thing you are studying. You Irish, but you aren't a landless farmer about to die from cholera during the famine

And I would suggest that there are instances where only people who are X can do X, e.g.,only an ordained priest should administer mass, or only someone trained in Hopi ceremonials should play the sacred tunes.

Further, I would submit that studying a topic is different than performing an act. Historians and anthropologists/sociologists play a far different role than those folk they are recording.

It seems pretty straightforward that only women can create the history of women—while anyone can study said history (whether those studying can truly understand without being a participant is a whole 'nuther question). Only Christians can make Christian history, etc.

However, all of this is rather off-topic to Mr. Ellis "essential flute". Perhaps another thread is in order.

Best wishes.

Steve

_________________
Alcohol is the liquid version of PhotoShop

I had the same thought after my last philosophical post Threads can and do wander a bit, but this one has gone far afield! A fascinating topic in itself, but of course not exactly a continuation of the OPs subject. And in my experience this philosophical digression never ends. It can be discussed til' doomsday

_________________
Geoffrey Ellis Flutes

There's always the Pub.

_________________
"Time is the wisest counselor of all." - Pericles

"I remain not entirely convinced of it." - Nano

Did I mention the Ellis flute is really good!

And yes, I have administered a "mass" there. Wine and wafers, beer and crisps, who cares? Baptismal water smelled terrible but it's not my fault they left the mop bucket where they did.

I seem to vaguely remember mention of an Ellis flute—can't remember where.

Best wishes.

Steve

_________________
Alcohol is the liquid version of PhotoShop

I just read Seamus Tansey's essay in "the crossroads conference" book. Christ what an idiot. Then I listened to Tommy Potts after reading Ó Súilleabháin's essay. Christ, what a great and astonishing artist. Cuts through a lot of nonsense

Try 'The Bardic Apostles of Innisfree' for good measure

_________________
My brain hurts

I wouldn't want to give him any of my hard earned dough. As you said, it's just racism, or at best thinly disguised xenophobia. Tansey has zero problem giving out American music--which he clearly knows fck-all about--while insisting on the centrality of deep knowledge of Irish music. America is a "mongrel nation (Mongel! for fcks sake!) and yet jazz is the pure voice of Africa. And then somehow he has Michael Flatley of all people symbolizing the song of the lark and the babbling irish brook and all that. I mean, no criticism of Flatley: the guy knows the music and he made a fortune adapting it to the modern stage and more power to him. But 100 stiff armed dancers battering away to a modern electrified band is really hard to square with all the rest of the rhetoric.

The whole crossroads conference book, while full of smart and interesting essays, just convinces me that my own practice of ITM will be solitary and private!

I've been trying to find evidence of Coleman's vaudeville touring career, and it's extremely scant. But one thing that's clear is how different the "musical environment" on NYC is in 1910-1920 compared to Ireland. Irish newspapers have almost no advertisements for music. The NY Irish America Advocate on the other hand has dozens and dozens of ads for specifically irish music at social halls, at theaters, and club gatherings and pubs. And lots of musicians advertising their services. Some of it is probably not "ITM" as it's known now, but Coleman showed us what he was playing when he started recording. Of course it's not an even comparison--Ireland is at war in 1917, Ireland is smaller than NYC; newspaper ads don't offer a anything like a full picture of how music is experienced in Ireland. But NYC would have confronted Coleman with lots and lots of ways to commercialize ITM and lots of competition for doing so.

So again Coleman being the bearer of Sligo authenticity is at least a little problematic

Hi PB+J. I just wanted to query one thing. I'm not being a pedant, honest; it's just that I can read two completely different meanings in something you wrote there:


You've spelt "mongrel" differently in each of the two instances in the above phrase. Did you mean that you thought he was saying that America was a "Mongol nation", or were you simply offended by him using the phrase "mongrel nation"? I don't want to assume ...

_________________
"Only connect!"

https://youtu.be/ezbWVysJAOY
https://tapm.bandcamp.com/