> ravi wrote:
>
>> i dare not speculate on what is the most meaningful addition
>> to the arts, but regarding the first part of your message:
>> what does it mean to say "america" gave the world jazz? did
>> not the black people give jazz to the world (excluding all
>> the cuban, african and south american influences)? to what
>> extent is it meaningful to appropriate the contribution of a
>> minority oppressed group (black americans) as that of
>> "america"?
>
>
> I find jazz mainly a lot of aimless noodling, but still, lots of people
> love it so who am I to question? But, dammit, black Americans are
> Americans, as much as white racists would like to claim they're not.
> Their ancestors have certainly been here a lot longer than mine. Jazz as
> we know it couldn't have arisen anywhere but in the U.S. - and there
> were more than a few white people involved in its evolution too.
>
but doug:
only the last point you make (that a few white people were involved in the evolution of jazz) goes towards substantiating what i perceived as the pride claimed by the original poster (he has since corrected my misconception).
with regard to your response: what do you mean when you say "black americans are americans"? what does "american" mean? are you using the term in a purely formal sense based on citizenship and physical presence? (i am implying that there is a different sense in which the term can be used - say cultural - but going into that seems not necessary for the purpose of my question and might distract).
--ravi