TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,492 
|
Post by TonyR on Jan 19, 2018 14:44:12 GMT
Because that's the music they've been more into all their lives therefore collected?
Me & my mates had a vinyl night last weekend & looking back I think I was the only one who brought any muic by black artists. Now these two friends are extremely liberal, non racist people but in this case they chose music by white artists.
Totally nothing to do with race or white privilege.
I wouldn't say it necessarily was. But I wanted to bring it up nonetheless. But to clarify, these aren't fans selling off their personal collections on the side, these are professional dealers. I was in a record store in Glasgow and the owner was on the phone to a person who was offering to bring in vinyl to sell to the owner and I kept hearing him stipulating over and over "only rock music". And as you've indicated, black artists have been just as successful at market as whites. Isn't it 'know your audience' though? How many people were looking for rock music?
Plus, from a vinyl era I imagine that rock or dare I use this horrible phrase, 'white music' was a lot more prevalent & easy to come by then?
|
|
ChrisC
Wondering Who
Posts: 200
|
Post by ChrisC on Jan 19, 2018 14:50:44 GMT
I wouldn't say it necessarily was. But I wanted to bring it up nonetheless. But to clarify, these aren't fans selling off their personal collections on the side, these are professional dealers. I was in a record store in Glasgow and the owner was on the phone to a person who was offering to bring in vinyl to sell to the owner and I kept hearing him stipulating over and over "only rock music". And as you've indicated, black artists have been just as successful at market as whites. Isn't it 'know your audience' though? How many people were looking for rock music?
Plus, from a vinyl era I imagine that rock or dare I use this horrible phrase, 'white music' was a lot more prevalent & easy to come by then?
Yeah I said that, maybe they know their customer base. But if you don't offer alternatives to people how can you really know what they want? I'm white, I'm male, I'm middle-aged (or something like that) and these guys won't have a clue that I'm interested in 'black music' too because they don't stock it or it's impossible to find (in the most extreme cases). It's something along the lines of what Bruce Springsteen called "the illusion of choice". |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 19, 2018 16:24:42 GMT
But for 'white people automatically give more benefits to white artists thus they have an unfair advantage.' part, is the same not true for 'black people automatically give more benefits to black artists thus they have an unfair advantage.'
The problem with that argument is that it is not black people who are the cultural gate-keepers in today's Western societies. Most music magazines and websites who declare what is "good music" and what isn't are run by white people. I am not saying those who run those music magazines and media are racists. They probably consider themselves good liberals. But still you can't deny that they have certain cultural and musical biases. Not always consciously, but it is still there. And that dominance in the opinion leader platforms gives white artists and artists in certain genres privileges and advantages over others. What ChrisC says is true. Whenever you hear people talk about music that is valuable, that is to collect and cherish - they almost always mean rock music and a certain kind of artists that overwhelmingly appeal to a white audience. Of course, it is not racist to be a fan of rock music - if that's your taste then that's your taste and that is alright. But I think there is really a bias towards certain genres, and certain kind of artists by the cultural gate-keepers and that influences the audience as well and it becomes a circle. |
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,492
|
Post by TonyR on Jan 19, 2018 16:40:43 GMT
But for 'white people automatically give more benefits to white artists thus they have an unfair advantage.' part, is the same not true for 'black people automatically give more benefits to black artists thus they have an unfair advantage.'
The problem with that argument is that it is not black people who are the cultural gate-keepers in today's Western societies. Most music magazines and websites who declare what is "good music" and what isn't are run by white people. I am not saying those who run those music magazines and media are racists. They probably consider themselves good liberals. But still you can't deny that they have certain cultural and musical biases. Not always consciously, but it is still there. And that dominance in the opinion leader platforms gives white artists and artists in certain genres privileges and advantages over others. What ChrisC says is true. Whenever you hear people talk about music that is valuable, that is to collect and cherish - they almost always mean rock music and a certain kind of artists that overwhelmingly appeal to a white audience. Of course, it is not racist to be a fan of rock music - if that's your taste then that's your taste and that is alright. But I think there is really a bias towards certain genres, and certain kind of artists by the cultural gate-keepers and that influences the audience as well and it becomes a circle. A music bias is in no way related to a cultural or race bias.
Music taste can't be explained. If I prefer Motown and R'n'B and my twin brother prefers Country and Rock it's irrelevant to our political views & thoughts on race.
Now in racist people they may stop themselves listening to black music or white music purposely, but for the majority music is totally spiritual and can't be explained.
What I feel you & Chris are intimating is that people who just prefer rock music is somehow assimilated to their race belief system (even if like you say not being racist). Otherwise it wouldn't have been brought up in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 19, 2018 17:08:32 GMT
The problem with that argument is that it is not black people who are the cultural gate-keepers in today's Western societies. Most music magazines and websites who declare what is "good music" and what isn't are run by white people. I am not saying those who run those music magazines and media are racists. They probably consider themselves good liberals. But still you can't deny that they have certain cultural and musical biases. Not always consciously, but it is still there. And that dominance in the opinion leader platforms gives white artists and artists in certain genres privileges and advantages over others. What ChrisC says is true. Whenever you hear people talk about music that is valuable, that is to collect and cherish - they almost always mean rock music and a certain kind of artists that overwhelmingly appeal to a white audience. Of course, it is not racist to be a fan of rock music - if that's your taste then that's your taste and that is alright. But I think there is really a bias towards certain genres, and certain kind of artists by the cultural gate-keepers and that influences the audience as well and it becomes a circle. A music bias is in no way related to a cultural or race bias.
Music taste can't be explained. If I prefer Motown and R'n'B and my twin brother prefers Country and Rock it's irrelevant to our political views & thoughts on race.
Now in racist people they may stop themselves listening to black music or white music purposely, but for the majority music is totally spiritual and can't be explained.
What I feel you & Chris are intimating is that people who just prefer rock music is somehow assimilated to their race belief system (even if like you say not being racist). Otherwise it wouldn't have been brought up in this thread.
I don't know how much better I can explain it if you still don't get it what I mean. I even explicitly stated that no, preferring rock music doesn't mean you are a racist. And again, I would like you to see the difference between racism and white privilege. When we talk about white privilege it doesn't mean we say that artist or his/her audience is racist. But you do have to be able to acknowledge those advantages and privileges and why that is a problem. For example, when most music magazine's offices are full of middle aged white men then of course they will tend to put certain artists on a pedestal undeservedly while underrating others, again undeservedly. Eg. Rolling Stone. They can't have a "best of list" with no Bob Dylan or the Beatles in their top five or at least 10. The most ridiculous example of this was when they once had a "best vocalists of all times" list and Bob Dylan was again high up in their list, at #7. Meanwhile MJ was on #25. Whitney Houston at #34! Now, tell me if that was fair. Objectively. I don't even have to be an MJ fan. The list is not about lyrics or whatever strengths you may attribute to Dylan. It's about vocals, singing, for God's sake! But they just can't have any list where Dylan is not in their Top 10. They just can't. vs. C'mon now! Now, they had Aretha Franklin at #1, so I guess that assures many people that it doesn't have ANYTHING at all to do with race, but it is very true still that they do underrate a lot of black artists and overrate a lot of white ones. And consistently so. I don't think it is necessarily conscious racism, but they do have biases towards "white aesthetics", for a lack of a better term. And when most influential music magazines have those biases it counts in shaping what the audience values as "good" and "bad" too. Now, I don't think these magazines have that much power any more in the Internet era, but they used to before the Internet era. And I think that did shape what audiences view as "valuable" music and what not. |
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Jan 19, 2018 18:39:25 GMT
Because that's the music they've been more into all their lives therefore collected?
Me & my mates had a vinyl night last weekend & looking back I think I was the only one who brought any muic by black artists. Now these two friends are extremely liberal, non racist people but in this case they chose music by white artists.
Totally nothing to do with race or white privilege.
You have mates? |
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 19, 2018 19:02:37 GMT
Myself and MrR are pen pals.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Jan 19, 2018 21:14:59 GMT
I'll explain my stance.....
Yes, white privilege is still very real in the music industry and it's MUCH deeper than "White artists get more exposure than black artists." It's how artists are marketed and the image they are put with. For some, black artists are pigeonholed or not considered marketable because of their look or appearance. Michael in fact can be an example....
The Jackson 5 was one of the biggest groups of 1970-1972 and had hit after hit, but the group and its music wasn't exactly welcomed by everyone because they're black. If you have the Jackson 5 sound and aesthetic, but you put five white mormon kids with unusually large smiles as part of the packaging, you may get more exposure....hence, the reinvention of The Osmonds
The term isn't about "oh John got the job because he's white". It's about how double standards/biases play such a significant role in how people of color are seen in the world. Although Michael, Prince, Lionel, and others became so successful, the issue is still there. In fact, a lot of people say Michael and Lionel were popular with people because although they were black, they were seen as "safe".
Has anyone seen the documentary, "Whitney: Can I Be Me?" It talks about how Clive Davis and Arista put a lot of effort to wash Whitney's image, portraying her as a sweet quiet, girl next door. The kind of singer white America would see as safe. There's a version of "Saving All My Love For You" that is shelved because it was deemed "too black". Whitney as a bold, brash black woman who may have possibly been bisexual could've been horrible to her image in 1984-1991
|
|
|
|
Post by funksoldier on Jan 19, 2018 22:49:24 GMT
I'll explain my stance..... Yes, white privilege is still very real in the music industry and it's MUCH deeper than "White artists get more exposure than black artists." It's how artists are marketed and the image they are put with. For some, black artists are pigeonholed or not considered marketable because of their look or appearance. Michael in fact can be an example.... The Jackson 5 was one of the biggest groups of 1970-1972 and had hit after hit, but the group and its music wasn't exactly welcomed by everyone because they're black. If you have the Jackson 5 sound and aesthetic, but you put five white mormon kids with unusually large smiles as part of the packaging, you may get more exposure....hence, the reinvention of The Osmonds The term isn't about "oh John got the job because he's white". It's about how double standards/biases play such a significant role in how people of color are seen in the world. Although Michael, Prince, Lionel, and others became so successful, the issue is still there. In fact, a lot of people say Michael and Lionel were popular with people because although they were black, they were seen as "safe".Has anyone seen the documentary, "Whitney: Can I Be Me?" It talks about how Clive Davis and Arista put a lot of effort to wash Whitney's image, portraying her as a sweet quiet, girl next door. The kind of singer white America would see as safe. There's a version of "Saving All My Love For You" that is shelved because it was deemed "too black". Whitney as a bold, brash black woman who may have possibly been bisexual could've been horrible to her image in 1984-1991 I couldn't agree more with the bolded! |
|
|
|
Post by SoCav on Jan 19, 2018 22:55:13 GMT
In general, white artists have definitely had an easier path to superstardom than black artists, no doubt. And jaywonder is definitely right about some of those marketing aspects. The J5/Osmonds example is quite poignant. Of course, this is not purely a race issue: it is in part inherent to pop music. Many white artists have been neutered by record labels who try to push a mass-appeal formula on them as well. A pop-oriented label is not going to market a 'country hick' to the masses unless he makes concessions or changes his image. But there's no doubt these pressures have been much stronger for black artists, if they were even offered the opportunity in the first place. Just as a bit of a sidenote: I don't think it is necessarily conscious racism, but they do have biases towards "white aesthetics", for a lack of a better term. And when most influential music magazines have those biases it counts in shaping what the audience values as "good" and "bad" too. Now, I don't think these magazines have that much power any more in the Internet era, but they used to before the Internet era. And I think that did shape what audiences view as "valuable" music and what not. I guess Rolling Stone is the prototypical example of these kinds of magazines, right? While race may certainly be a part of the equation, I think saying they favor white aesthetics is too simplistic. Other (perceived) 'white' genres such as heavy metal are not valued at all by them either. They are specifically biased in favor of 60s/70s classic rock. Fans of that genre and from that generation started these influential magazines. They have not abandoned those roots. As such, the further a genre deviates from what is normative within classic rock, the more it tends to be ignored or negatively perceived by them. There is a heavy emphasis on lyricism and mythological rock & roll imagery. Genres that are, for instance, more groove-based tend to be completely misunderstood. Hey, I'm the first one to say that it's ridiculous that those magazines are seen as anything but genre-specific and were considered so influential. But I think it's too simple to say they're focused on white aesthetics. In general, it's just such a shame that people tend to be so clingy about one particular style of music and so close-minded towards other genres. Music has that beautiful quality of appealing to the most visceral and universal part of our common humanity, while at the same time reflecting very specific individual and cultural experiences. It can take genuine effort to gain an appreciation for totally different styles of music, but there's a lot to be found there. (No, I didn't smoke a spliff). |
|
ChrisC
Wondering Who
Posts: 200
|
Post by ChrisC on Jan 20, 2018 20:34:53 GMT
I guess Rolling Stone is the prototypical example of these kinds of magazines, right? While race may certainly be a part of the equation, I think saying they favor white aesthetics is too simplistic. Other (perceived) 'white' genres such as heavy metal are not valued at all by them either. They are specifically biased in favor of 60s/70s classic rock. Fans of that genre and from that generation started these influential magazines. They have not abandoned those roots. But were we to look at a spectrum of how these publications treat various genres, I think it'd be very telling. And speaking of those publications, there was always the token 'black' album thrown in to those best albums lists etc. As if Marvin Gaye's What's Going On was the only 'black album' worthy enough of it's white contemporaries. Amen. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 20, 2018 21:42:22 GMT
I guess Rolling Stone is the prototypical example of these kinds of magazines, right? While race may certainly be a part of the equation, I think saying they favor white aesthetics is too simplistic. Other (perceived) 'white' genres such as heavy metal are not valued at all by them either. They are specifically biased in favor of 60s/70s classic rock. Fans of that genre and from that generation started these influential magazines. They have not abandoned those roots. It is true that there are more factors there than race. I don't dispute that. But I think race is also a factor. Not necessarily consciously. I think Rolling Stone, for example, would consider itself a liberal leaning magazine, so I am sure they don't think of themselves as racists. But it is true that when you have a bunch of people writing for a magazine and those people come from a similar racial and cultural backround there will be certain biases there and certain aesthetics will be preferred over others. Now, I agree that not all of that might be down to race, but some might - not necessarily consciously. Eventually such biases will add to white privilege ie. that white artists will have an easier time in such magazines. For example, I find it amazing that someone like MJ after all the success and greatness of Off The Wall had to beg RS to give him a cover story and they refused. Meanwhile they had no problem to put all kind of comparatively mediocre white artists on their cover. But then RS has never been especially kind to MJ - so there may be other factors there as well, I think it is also true that they never really "got" MJ. But I have the feeling that it was a white artist doing OTW he would not have had to beg them for a cover story. This also leads us to the topic of "white medocricity" - and I think that's an existing phenomenon too. What I mean by that that is that often a black artist with talent has to fight for exposure a lot harder than his less talented white counterpart. I guess Rolling Stone is the prototypical example of these kinds of magazines, right? While race may certainly be a part of the equation, I think saying they favor white aesthetics is too simplistic. Other (perceived) 'white' genres such as heavy metal are not valued at all by them either. They are specifically biased in favor of 60s/70s classic rock. Fans of that genre and from that generation started these influential magazines. They have not abandoned those roots. But were we to look at a spectrum of how these publications treat various genres, I think it'd be very telling. And speaking of those publications, there was always the token 'black' album thrown in to those best albums lists etc. As if Marvin Gaye's What's Going On was the only 'black album' worthy enough of it's white contemporaries. They do have their token black artists. You will see Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye and sometimes James Brown high on their lists. Oh and Jimi Hendrix, but he is one of those black artists who appealed more to a white audience than a black audience. Again, there may be an age factor there as much as a race factor (notice how these artists are all from the baby boomer generation), but I do think they notice and acknowledge white artists sooner than they do black ones and that's a factor too. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 21, 2018 6:14:49 GMT
That's why it is not surprising that they were more enthusiastic about Prince, for instance. Prince's music and image in the 80s had much more in common with classic rock acts than MJ's. Hence why they put him on the cover before MJ (as an adult). And of course Hendrix did get fully embraced - he made classic rock! Prince was marketed as half/part-white to appeal more to white audiences. In that early Rolling Stone article, for example, he was claimed to be part Italian and he was claimed to be mixed race rather than black. I don't know who it came from - Prince, his management, his label or the magazine. But it shows that if you wanted to get to mainstream audiences it WAS an advantage to be white or at least part white if you could get away with it because you had a light skin. Actually this is a good evidence of white privilege if a black artist felt the need to lie and claim to be whiter than he was to get to RS's audience. www.rollingstone.com/music/news/princes-hot-rock-the-secret-life-of-americas-sexiest-one-man-band-19830428Reality: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)#Early_lifeIn the movie Purple Rain he was also portrayed as mixed race. |
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,492
|
Post by TonyR on Jan 21, 2018 14:04:04 GMT
A music bias is in no way related to a cultural or race bias.
Music taste can't be explained. If I prefer Motown and R'n'B and my twin brother prefers Country and Rock it's irrelevant to our political views & thoughts on race.
Now in racist people they may stop themselves listening to black music or white music purposely, but for the majority music is totally spiritual and can't be explained.
What I feel you & Chris are intimating is that people who just prefer rock music is somehow assimilated to their race belief system (even if like you say not being racist). Otherwise it wouldn't have been brought up in this thread.
. I even explicitly stated that no, preferring rock music doesn't mean you are a racist. And again, I would like you to see the difference between racism and white privilege. When we talk about white privilege it doesn't mean we say that artist or his/her audience is racist. But you do have to be able to acknowledge those advantages and privileges and why that is a problem. For example, when most music magazine's offices are full of middle aged white men then of course they will tend to put certain artists on a pedestal undeservedly while underrating others, again undeservedly. Eg. Rolling Stone. They can't have a "best of list" with no Bob Dylan or the Beatles in their top five or at least 10. The most ridiculous example of this was when they once had a "best vocalists of all times" list and Bob Dylan was again high up in their list, at #7. Meanwhile MJ was on #25. Whitney Houston at #34! Now, tell me if that was fair. Objectively. I don't even have to be an MJ fan. The list is not about lyrics or whatever strengths you may attribute to Dylan. It's about vocals, singing, for God's sake! But they just can't have any list where Dylan is not in their Top 10. They just can't. C'mon now! Now, they had Aretha Franklin at #1, so I guess that assures many people that it doesn't have ANYTHING at all to do with race, but it is very true still that they do underrate a lot of black artists and overrate a lot of white ones. And consistently so. I don't think it is necessarily conscious racism, but they do have biases towards "white aesthetics", for a lack of a better term. And when most influential music magazines have those biases it counts in shaping what the audience values as "good" and "bad" too. Now, I don't think these magazines have that much power any more in the Internet era, but they used to before the Internet era. And I think that did shape what audiences view as "valuable" music and what not. Argh! It's so patronising when you say I don't understand! I'm tempted to quote Homer Simpson, 'Just because I dont care, doesn't mean I don't understand'!
I do get what you mean, but I disagree. How can WMP and racism, not really be the same thing? White male privilege is saying that if you are white you will be better throught of/go further. How is that nor racism (and of course sexism). Like someome said earlier, of course this is true for all walks of life. But Rolling Stone perferring rock music isn't evidence of that, nor is JT having a career.
In Japan/Korea it is mainly homegrown pop stars who rule the charts, so do they have Asian Privilege? It's just about taste and like I said earlier, people identifying with their own.
Also, when you pick & choose these Rolling Stones lists for being mainly white and then you cherry pick out the black artists because (well, they appealed to whites or they were token artists) you are negating your argument. If the lists were exclusively white then that's one thing, but if they include Prince, Whitney, Aretha, MJ, Marvin. Stevie etc. then they are diverse.
If they prefer Dylan to MJ or Houston, then fine. So do a lot of my friends. As unbelievable as that is to me. But to intimate that's simply because Dylan is white, it's extremely offensive. As a female artist, I prefer Madonna to Aretha. Is that White Female Privilege?? Is it fuck.
I guess like you & Liberian Girl in the Aethiest thread we're not going to agree, but that's not because I don't understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 21, 2018 15:37:35 GMT
I don't know how much better I can explain it if you still don't get it what I mean. I even explicitly stated that no, preferring rock music doesn't mean you are a racist. And again, I would like you to see the difference between racism and white privilege. When we talk about white privilege it doesn't mean we say that artist or his/her audience is racist. But you do have to be able to acknowledge those advantages and privileges and why that is a problem. For example, when most music magazine's offices are full of middle aged white men then of course they will tend to put certain artists on a pedestal undeservedly while underrating others, again undeservedly. Eg. Rolling Stone. They can't have a "best of list" with no Bob Dylan or the Beatles in their top five or at least 10. The most ridiculous example of this was when they once had a "best vocalists of all times" list and Bob Dylan was again high up in their list, at #7. Meanwhile MJ was on #25. Whitney Houston at #34! Now, tell me if that was fair. Objectively. I don't even have to be an MJ fan. The list is not about lyrics or whatever strengths you may attribute to Dylan. It's about vocals, singing, for God's sake! But they just can't have any list where Dylan is not in their Top 10. They just can't. C'mon now! Now, they had Aretha Franklin at #1, so I guess that assures many people that it doesn't have ANYTHING at all to do with race, but it is very true still that they do underrate a lot of black artists and overrate a lot of white ones. And consistently so. I don't think it is necessarily conscious racism, but they do have biases towards "white aesthetics", for a lack of a better term. And when most influential music magazines have those biases it counts in shaping what the audience values as "good" and "bad" too. Now, I don't think these magazines have that much power any more in the Internet era, but they used to before the Internet era. And I think that did shape what audiences view as "valuable" music and what not. Argh! It's so patronising when you say I don't understand! I'm tempted to quote Homer Simpson, 'Just because I dont care, doesn't mean I don't understand'!
I do get what you mean, but I disagree. How can WMP and racism, not really be the same thing? White male privilege is saying that if you are white you will be better throught of/go further. How is that nor racism (and of course sexism). Like someome said earlier, of course this is true for all walks of life. But Rolling Stone perferring rock music isn't evidence of that, nor is JT having a career.
In Japan/Korea it is mainly homegrown pop stars who rule the charts, so do they have Asian Privilege? It's just about taste and like I said earlier, people identifying with their own.
Also, when you pick & choose these Rolling Stones lists for being mainly white and then you cherry pick out the black artists because (well, they appealed to whites or they were token artists) you are negating your argument. If the lists were exclusively white then that's one thing, but if they include Prince, Whitney, Aretha, MJ, Marvin. Stevie etc. then they are diverse.
If they prefer Dylan to MJ or Houston, then fine. So do a lot of my friends. As unbelievable as that is to me. But to intimate that's simply because Dylan is white, it's extremely offensive. As a female artist, I prefer Madonna to Aretha. Is that White Female Privilege?? Is it fuck.
I guess like you & Liberian Girl in the Aethiest thread we're not going to agree, but that's not because I don't understand.
Re. Bob Dylan, my point wasn't that someone cannot prefer Bob Dylan to Whitney Houston, or that everyone who prefers him prefers him because he is white. To say that was my argument is misrepresenting it and is only missing the main point of that list - ie. that it was about vocals. Not about whether someone prefers Dylan as an artist overall to Houston or MJ. I get it that art is subjective and perhaps there are even people who actually do prefer Dylan as a vocalist to Whitney Houston (although I don't think that it is his vocals why his fans generally like him), but I think there are objective qualities to vocals - and I am sorry, objectively Whitney Houston is a miles better vocalist than Bob Dylan could ever dream of being. If we are making a list about vocals then let's not talk about songwriting, lyrics or overall artistry why people genuinely might prefer Dylan to Houston. If a list is about vocals then it should be about that and a little objectivity wouldn't hurt if you are a magazine (and not a Bob Dylan fan magazine). And to me a list that puts Dylan at #7 as a vocalist but MJ in the 20s, Whitney in the 30s, just cannot be taken seriously. Now, of course, maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with white privilege, consciously or unconsciously, in any shape or form. Maybe it is just the baby boomer narrow-mindedness that RS has all the time and that's it. Maybe their refusal to put MJ on their cover during OTW (while having no problem featuring less talented white artists) also has absolutely nothing to do with white privilege either. Although you can't ignore the fact that generally when a magazine put a black artist on its cover at the time, it sold less. (Same why you still, in these days, you rarely see movies with black leads. I once read an article how producers have a harder time to sell movies with black leads in Europe, for example.) So maybe such choices do have something to do with white privilege after all. What about the fact that Prince felt the need to pretend to be part white at the beginning of his career to get exposure? Is that still not evidence of white people having privileges? What I meant when I objected to your use of "racism" and "white privilege" interchangably is that, say, when a movie goer is not interested in a movie that has a black lead, he doesn't necessarily think consciously that "I won't go watching this movie because it has a black lead and I hate black people". It just doesn't interest him that much because he can't identify with the black protagonist as much as he would if he was white. Of course, it is the same vica versa - black people identify more with black artists, Asians with Asians etc. That seems natural. Would you call that racism? But where privilege enters the picture is that in the Western world most of the economical and purchasing power is with white people. The market is dominated by white costumers. So providers cater to mainly what white people like and "white tastes". That is expressed in many other areas, not just music or movies. See beauty standards and products etc. Of course, that is changing, there have been steps ahead since the 1970s-1980s, but it was very much prevalent then and it still does exist even if there are improvements. The point is that white privilege is a system. Racist attitudes certainly are a part and a reason of it but it is not the same as racism. People might contribute to the system of white privilege through behaviors and choices that aren't in itself racist. But added together they do result in a system where white people are at an advantage. |
|
