[still responding only on the above narrow issue]
I am not sure I get the above. Yes, everyone learns what they do from somewhere. Typically from what surrounds them. But the question really is whether these precursors were the primary generators of the art that is being celebrated. After all, we have not thus far in this thread celebrated the South for Irish jigs, and so on. And if, as I asked, a significant contributor to the birth of Black music (say the blues) is the suffering meted out to blacks by whites, then that negative influence would cancel out (if not overwhelm) any "roots" claims, wouldn't it?
I am trying to work this out logically (i.e., not trying to be facetious or sarcastic). I can sort of see the other side: some(*) in India believe that the strength of modern Indian democracy can be traced to its roots in British parliamentarianism (is that a valid word?) and such, which is to be acknowledged, whatever the horrors of colonialism are. Similarly for a strong bureaucracy, etc. I can sort of see that argument (though I cannot decide on its validity without more data and analysis). But I would be a bit more confused if we were to say Britain had its share of great cricket players and point to Sunil Gavaskar because Britain introduced cricket into India... perhaps that metaphor is wrong, too?
--ravi
(*) Amartya Sen argues otherwise in The Argumentative Indian.