Coder Girl...

Christopher Browne cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at
Fri Jul 24 18:53:32 UTC 2009

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Rajinder Yadav< at> wrote:
> first I am not offended with what you said, but I would like you to
> try to see that your story about me and other who enjoy artist and
> self-expression and sharing is totally misguided.
> I would like to invite you to stand and try to see that there is
> nothing wrong about Rap, however what is wrong is what you seem to be
> telling yourself.

It seems to me that this misses an important point...

There *IS* something wrong with rap, and that is that it's not to ZB's
taste, musically.  I happen to agree with his "musical taste" at least
in this regard.  I'm not much of a rap fan, either.

- I don't like rap.
- After a summer of sharing a basement with a Bob Marley fan, I'm not
terribly keen on reggae either.
- Any of the remotely "smelly-feet-ish" cheeses disagree with me.
- Don't offer me durian.

These are matters of taste, and it's NOT WRONG to have preferences of taste.

> I can only invite you to change your perception about music, about
> rap, about self-expression and about sharing... please drop the act
> that something is or has to be wrong when there is absolutely nothing
> wrong!

There seem to be some quasi-objective reasons to think that there are
some fundamental structural differences between varieties of music
that would merit calling some sorts, which have deeper structural
complexities (notably classical and jazz) "superior"  to other sorts
that lack structural complexity and sophistication.

There's something of a gulf between that and monkeys, of course...

> You stand in a place of GRATE ignorance when you judge societies on
> the merits of Rap music, let me remind you many are killed in the name
> or religion?

... And it is in no way obvious that such claims are actually *TRUE.*

- There have been plenty of societies where it is difficult to
unambiguously separate culture from religion from political structure.

- There are few societies so lacking in political nuance that it is
not possible for leaders who are seeking political gain to describe
things in culturally- and religiously-sensitive terms so as to keep
their supporters silent.

During the last decade, the usage of the word "crusade" (which
certainly has a religious nuance) along with flag-waving kept many
Americans standing behind the military actions in Iraq, even though it
seems entirely likely that the *true* purposes of the US
administration had much more to do with projecting power and transfer
of wealth (if nothing else, via the government contracts with
Halliburton for logistical services).

It's not at all obvious that even the original Crusades that this
points back to were forcibly caused by religious principle.  To be
sure, they are associated with "religious piety," and there is an
*immense* amount of noise to suggest such.  But there are PLENTY of
complicating factors.

It was almost certainly convenient to almost all of the political
leaders involved to treat it as a religious conflict; it has been
condemned thus:

"High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed … the Holy War was
nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God". - Sir
Steven Runciman (_A History of the Crusades_)

That it was nominally (and loudly!) done "in the name of God" isn't
nearly an implication that it was actually religious in cause.

> So it's ignorant people who actually causes grief in this world, not
> religion and certainly not rap music or monkey people like me =)

I don't think "ignorant people" tend to have that much power to affect
all the grief.  I think instead that it is *powerful people* who have
the "cruelty and greed" to match that power...
Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach  - "Even a stopped clock is right twice a
day." -
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings:
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns

More information about the Legacy mailing list