> ravi wrote:
>
>>doug, your thoughts seem to make an excellent case against the
>>exclusion of blacks from american mainstream culture (and
>>politics and identity, etc), but the question is whether
>>america can appropriate black culture and contributions as its
>>own, isnt it? it is true that black culture influenced america
>>in the long run, but only so through its presence as the
>>"other", isnt it? if that be the case, then how valid is it
>>for america today to appropriate these contributions as
>
> Who or what is this "America" that is expropriating black culture? It
> reads like a very racialized view in which whites claim the national
> name and fortune and everyone else is just the ill-paid help. The
> U.S. is too much like this now, but it shouldn't be, so I don't want
> to concede that American and white are synonyms.
>
doug, with all respect, arent you getting into the "what is" and "what ought" confusion here? if you say "the U.S is too much like this now" then you are conceding that "american and white are synonyms", aren't you? perhaps you mean the U.S is too radicalized in making the false dichotomy you state (whites claim name and fortune, others are ill-paid help)? if so:
do you not feel that black (or other minority) cultures and voices are marginalized? i agree that black culture does eventually enter popular culture, terminology, etc., but only in the long term. the "america" that expropriates black culture is the mainstream america - white america - which defines and regulates what is presented as the nation in terms of the culture, politics, etc (i am making a hypothetical statement here - i am not knowledgeable enough to say that in fact white america is such a homogeneous entity etc).
--ravi