Of interest..portion of an interesting Guardian article from last week, which some of you may have picked up on GoogleAlerts

Paint it black: Estelle is right: the 'anti-establishment' music industry is way behind the rest of society in tackling racism

..Cast your mind back to 1997. The soundtrack to New Labour's optimistic early period in office was the fag end of Britpop and Kula Shaker. As public schoolboys who pedalled a guitars plus sitars, the latter had scorn heaped on them for their supposed inauthenticity. Not only were they middle-class, but they even had the temerity to be whitefaced whippersnappers profiting from their exoticised use of Indian stylings in pop music. Add to this the lead singer's questionable statements about appearing onstage to swastikas, and charges of racism in pop abounded..

I went to see Kula Shaker live around this time and you could count the number of Asians in the audience on one hand. I don't think they'd stayed away because they were making any kind of statement. They were just happier going to clubs playing dance music at the time. Nonetheless, there were suspicions about how Kula Shaker had got a major label record deal while their Asian counterparts were struggling for recognition.

Full article: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rupa_huq/2008/03/paint_it_black.html

Thanks for the link, although based on that sample I think I'll give it a miss. I wonder what percentage of Asians made up the audience at the average Blur or Oasis gig at the same time? It's hardly a surprise that a white indie band draws a mainly white crowd at the end of the day. If your best shot at exposing racism in the current music industry is to point out that a white band you once saw live in 1997 didn't seem to attract a very large Asian following, then you really are clutching at straws...

And it seems to me the reason that KS got a record contract back then was not so much down to some kind of racist conspiracy to deny Asian acts a voice so much as the fact that KS were the right band at the right time, given the musical climate back then. If the music industry was so racist, how come Cornershop had a number one single around the same time? (Something KS never achieved, I might add...)

Very few journalists bother to research to the extent of our knowledge...we know just how hard Kula Shaker worked to get that recognition. The fact that Crispian comes from a wealthy background is all that other people see - they assume that the success they achieved at the time was handed to them on a plate. It's a shame, but reverse snobbery as a form of discrimination seems to slip away unnoticed.

I don't think the industry is necessarily racist anyway - it is driven by money, and people are signed to sell records, regardless of colour! That is how I perceive the industry in Britain, at any rate. The article is pretty poor, on the whole, even aside from the KS references.

Ah, ffs. By that logic, every time a white rock band is signed on it's racism, because at the end of the day, rock'n'roll evolved from the mainly black blues and jazz.

I think you should all add these comments to the article as there's quite a firey debate going on over the kula shaker thing...

quote:

Originally posted by K:
I think you should all add these comments to the article as there's quite a firey debate going on over the kula shaker thing...

I know what the Guardian Online lot are like, and I know it's a lost cause. If I thought there was a chance that reasoned argument might win out over stupid prejudice then I'd give it a go

quote:

Originally posted by K:
I think you should all add these comments to the article as there's quite a firey debate going on over the kula shaker thing...

Having gone through a bit of the comments, it seems that for a change, the guys are doing quite well without us - most comments seem to be in the spirit of "keep KS out of it".
So yay.

I do wonder though, if I should one day leave a comment on one of these places that if I, as a granddaughter of two people who were in Auswitz and one in Bergen Belzen, can get over the swastika comment, so can they. I'm so tempted.

quote:

Originally posted by Pitry, la reine des champignons:
I do wonder though, if I should one day leave a comment on one of these places that if I, as a granddaughter of two people who were in Auswitz and one in Bergen Belzen, can get over the swastika comment, so can they. I'm so tempted.

Possibly (and I'm sure it would be effective at countering a certain line of argument), but then wouldn't it seem like you were forgiving them in a way? When if Crispian's comments are interpreted correctly then they haven't really anything to apologise for. I strongly believe that if you believe something to be true then you shouldn't be afraid to say it just because it might offend certain groups in society. Because then you just end up with the extremes of political correctness. But the widespread usage of the swastika in Hindu culture predating Hitler is just plain fact; what's so wrong with pointing that out. I've a feeling I've been here before though.

quote:

Originally posted by drykid:

quote:

Originally posted by Pitry, la reine des champignons:
I do wonder though, if I should one day leave a comment on one of these places that if I, as a granddaughter of two people who were in Auswitz and one in Bergen Belzen, can get over the swastika comment, so can they. I'm so tempted.

Possibly (and I'm sure it would be effective at countering a certain line of argument), but then wouldn't it seem like you were forgiving them in a way? When if Crispian's comments are interpreted correctly then they haven't really anything to apologise for. I strongly believe that if you believe something to be true then you shouldn't be afraid to say it just because it might offend certain groups in society. Because then you just end up with the extremes of political correctness. But the widespread usage of the swastika in Hindu culture predating Hitler is just plain fact; what's so wrong with pointing that out. I've a feeling I've been here before though.

You were here before, I just consistently refused to comment, because as both a die-hard KS fan and someone with dozens of dead relatives and unfortunately considerably less surviving ones from the Nazis I can, in fact, see why people got offended - and I'm talking about people who read the comment and realised it for what it was, not the people calling Crispian racist - even if I, personally, was not offended by it.

quote:

Originally posted by Rupa Huq:
there were suspicions about how Kula Shaker had got a major label record deal while their Asian counterparts were struggling for recognition.

Maybe I have this wrong, but I took this comment to imply that there were Asian bands making music sufficiently similar to Kula Shaker's that the only possible explanation as to why they weren't signed and Kula Shaker were, was because they were Asian?

I find that very unlikely. Perhaps I'm just ignorant??

And if there were such bands then by all means, I want to hear them.

quote:

Originally posted by Pitry, la reine des champignons:
You were here before, I just consistently refused to comment, because as both a die-hard KS fan and someone with dozens of dead relatives and unfortunately considerably less surviving ones from the Nazis I can, in fact, see why people got offended - and I'm talking about people who read the comment and realised it for what it was, not the people calling Crispian racist - even if I, personally, was not offended by it.

Hmmm I hear everything you say, and I realise that there's no way (thank God) I could ever see it from the personal perspective that you have had to live with. But I suppose I'm saying that just because people were offended by it, doesn't in itself mean he was wrong to say it? I can fully understand why some people took offence, but maybe to a degree that's because their own experiences meant that they were unable to look objectively at what he was saying?

I realise this is probably a bad analogy, but I've always been against the notion of using "victim's statements" in court as part of the process of deciding criminal's sentences. Because it seems to me that the people who were personally involved are the very last people who are in a position to objectively contribute to the process, because of their emotional associations with the crime itself.

At the end of the day there've been plenty of times when I've said things that I knew in advance would cause offence, but I said them because I believed them to be true, and because I felt they needed saying. So I find it hard to pass judgement on Crispian for doing something similar.

quote:

Originally posted by 2-J:
I find that very unlikely. Perhaps I'm just ignorant??

No, I think you're quite correct in what you say. I think they're just trying to argue a particularly dubious viewpoint (that the music industry is inherently racist) and just clutching at anything even vaguely relevant.

"That band Kula Shaker, everyone hates them, don't they? And they were supposed to be racist too. So if I just mention their name, then people will be on my side right from the off, even though I'm not exactly sure what my point is." That seems to be the extent of the reasoning behind it. I see a lot of very weak opinion pieces like this on the Guardian website. I think too many writers there are being paid too much in commission to come up with opinion pieces. So the desire to make a few hundred quid comes first, and the opinion a very distant second. But yeah, I'm cynical

Rupa Huq: "I went to see Kula Shaker live around this time and you could count the number of Asians in the audience on one hand."


I'm not sure whether I'm missing the point of Rupa Huq's article but does this journalist think that there were more 'Asians' seeing Kula Shaker in the 90s because of the band's musical influences from India? Rubbish. Kula Shaker were popular because people liked their music. Rupa Huq's article is full of stereotypes, pigeonholing and endless contradictions.

Does this woman really have a lecturing position at Kingston in youth culture and pop music? What a joke.

quote:

Originally posted by drykid:

Hmmm I hear everything you say, and I realise that there's no way (thank God) I could ever see it from the personal perspective that you have had to live with. But I suppose I'm saying that just because people were offended by it, doesn't in itself mean he was wrong to say it? I can fully understand why some people took offence, but maybe to a degree that's because their own experiences meant that they were unable to look objectively at what he was saying?

I realise this is probably a bad analogy, but I've always been against the notion of using "victim's statements" in court as part of the process of deciding criminal's sentences. Because it seems to me that the people who were personally involved are the very last people who are in a position to objectively contribute to the process, because of their emotional associations with the crime itself.

At the end of the day there've been plenty of times when I've said things that I knew in advance would cause offence, but I said them because I believed them to be true, and because I felt they needed saying. So I find it hard to pass judgement on Crispian for doing something similar.

But that isn't exactly what happened here. It's not just objectivity we're talking about. The "objectivity" in question would have been "the swastika was a Hindu symbol of love and peace and the sun thousands of years before the Nazis misused it".
I doubt you'd find anyone offended from that - these are just the facts.

But Crispian said something else. He said "that was Hitler, don't let him take something like that away from you." That's not objective. That's passing a very clear moral judgement of "why can't you get over it and ignore how people used it 60 years ago". To be really nasty and quote you (sorry for bringing that up, I just remember that example clearly cos back then I was biting my tongue not to comment)...

quote:

I hear what you're saying, but it's not even like you're asking them to accept a new context, only the original one. If it's new to them then that's down to their lack of education. And why should we pander to their ignorance / arrogance?

(back in that old topic)

To go back outside of the history lessons, why would a woman like my grandmother, for example, he got out of Auswitz at 17 - seventeen! - alone without a single soul left in the world, who from what my mum describes (she died when I was too young to really udnerstand) suffered from PTSD for the rest of her life along with various other physical conditions, by the people who used that symbol, care? Why would anyone who suffered like this - even if they knew the original meaning of the symbol - care? And what right does anyone, Crispian, you or myself, BTW, have to come and tell them, "I don't care that symbol bothers you, get over it."

No one's bothered about what the symbol used to represent. No one comes and says "The Hindu culture is anti-semitic, look, they use the swastika" - I hope no one's that ignorant, anyway. It's the expectation that people would just ignore everything that came afterwards. It's a subjective expectation, and one that, at least IMO, is extremely insensitive. That's how I read the people who got offended because of what Crispian said - the ones who actually got what he was talking about. And why he ended up sending a 4-page apology. And that's what he actually said there - he was being insensitive.

He was.

I'm not judging him - I've been 22 not too long ago and said a couple of very stupid things, without the help of cannabis or acid. And everyone I know, too. And there's no reason this thing should haunt him now, 12 years later. Hell, the thing should have - and probably would have, if it weren't for his mother and grandfather and their money - been forgotten a couple of months after the original publication. Everything that hapened afterwards - especially bringing it up in such a one sided, inaccurate manner as in the current article - shouldn't have happened.

But the fact he originally got criticised for it? Well, yeah, and fucking rightfully so.

And on a differnet topic...

quote:

Maybe I have this wrong, but I took this comment to imply that there were Asian bands making music sufficiently similar to Kula Shaker's that the only possible explanation as to why they weren't signed and Kula Shaker were, was because they were Asian?

I find that very unlikely. Perhaps I'm just ignorant??

Oh yeah. Well, she seems to have seriuosly tried to claim in that article what I said with sarcasm - that all the white rockers are exploiting non-white traditions and musicians and that basically every time a white rocker (or rapper, or r'n'b, or whatever) is being signed on to a major label it's racism.

So, say, instead of allowing a free, productive dialogue between cultures that can actually bring out more understnding and less racism, each should listen to their "own" music alone.
Sounds slightly racist to me, TBh...

(and yeah, I don't recall psychedlic rock with Indian influences being very common amognst bands back in 97 )

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pitry, Queen of Shrooms,

Nobody could blame someone who was in Auschwitz for not being able, or should we say, not wanting, to understand the other uses for that symbol.

Anyone who would say to someone like that 'get over it' or 'learn about the original meaning' - well that would indeed be inappropriate.

But there's still the separate question about how people who weren't in those situations should react. The new generation.

It's a bit like this. Nobody could blame the mother of murdered children for not wanting to 'understand' her children's murderer. Nobody could blame her for wanting the murderer tortured or killed in a horrible way. And yes anyone trying to persuade her to adopt another view would probably be in the wrong. But that doesn't mean as society, that we should go along with what she says. Au contraire, we should attempt to understand and rehabilitate the offender (even if they stay in prison forever). We should give them a custodial sentence as opposed to hang, drawing and quartering them. (this is essentially drykid's point about victim statements)

Unrestricted moral outrage and offence that cuts across objective facts (such as for example, the rich history of the swastika) is understandable in some cases but it doesn't entail that those of us not personally involved need to take up the cross (or indeed should)

Maybe Crispian should have prefaced his comments with something along the lines of "I'm in no way speaking to people who were personally involved because I have no right to tell them to get over it. But I'm speaking to the new generation, why can't we reclaim this?" Isn't it a positive thought? It certainly doesn't entail forgetting the enormity of the crimes the nazis perpetrated.