Opinion of Iggy Azalea

[Lief 🗽]

Of course cultural appropriation is a thing...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The trouble with it is as a concept is that unless you are being really careful there's a risk that you start heading back into a previous and rather less enlightened era of cultural criticism; the idea that certain forms of culture are entirely the property of certain peoples (and may actually be innate to them on some level), that culture can be 'polluted' by outsiders and so on. It's not a very long journey from there to Das Judenthum in der Musik, and it should be noted that there are stations further down the line than that...

[Maxwell]

Might as well include Adele, Sam Smith, Amy Whitehouse, and any number of british theives if we're going on "black voices". I don't really have a problem with them being categorized similarly, considering they are all isolated nostalgists whose popularity is deeply disturbing for the possibility of new and inventive music, but the whole cultural appropriation starts to get pretty big.

It all goes back to Elvis...

[Beet]

The trouble with it is as a concept is that unless you are being really careful there's a risk that you start heading back into a previous and rather less enlightened era of cultural criticism; the idea that certain forms of culture are entirely the property of certain peoples (and may actually be innate to them on some level), that culture can be 'polluted' by outsiders and so on. It's not a very long journey from there to Das Judenthum in der Musik, and it should be noted that there are stations further down the line than that...

Right, this is why I've always been firmly critical of the phrase 'cultural appropriation'. It gets thrown around for everything from stereotyping to whitewashing to... this. Even if one were to completely throw out the idea of cultural appropriation though, one can see why Iggy's success upsets people.

[ingemann]

The trouble with it is as a concept is that unless you are being really careful there's a risk that you start heading back into a previous and rather less enlightened era of cultural criticism; the idea that certain forms of culture are entirely the property of certain peoples (and may actually be innate to them on some level), that culture can be 'polluted' by outsiders and so on. It's not a very long journey from there to Das Judenthum in der Musik, and it should be noted that there are stations further down the line than that...

Right, this is why I've always been firmly critical of the phrase 'cultural appropriation'. It gets thrown around for everything from stereotyping to whitewashing to... this. Even if one were to completely throw out the idea of cultural appropriation though, one can see why Iggy's success upsets people.

Yes I get that some people think she's horrible person and/or musician, and whether You, I or anybody else agree or disagree, that's a legitimate but highly subjective critic of her. But it wasn't the one people use, they criticised her for "stealing" Black music. Which show a very ugly mentality in the people who say that.

As for someone who said earlier that Iggy is in the way for more talented Black female rapper, that's completely ridiculous. Musicians stand on their own and some of them make it big, through a mix of luck, stubborness and charisma, not necessary talent. The greatest musicians are not necessary the people making it big.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

ingemann, this is admittedly not directly comparable but I'm going to submit that what Iggy Azalea is all about is a sort of distinctly uncomfortable middle ground between this and the sort of good-faith cultural exchange that you seem to assume it is: Do you understand what the problem with minstrel shows is?

[ingemann]

ingemann, this is admittedly not directly comparable but I'm going to submit that what Iggy Azalea is all about is a sort of distinctly uncomfortable middle ground between this and the sort of good-faith cultural exchange that you seem to assume it is: Do you understand what the problem with minstrel shows is?

Yes I do, the fact that they ridiculed Black people and portraited them as buffoons.

Here's the thing, you can't say that Iggy act is a ministel show and say that she copy them at the same time. Unless you want to say that modern African-American musicians run their own ministrel show for the benefit of White Americans, and if you believe that's the case, Iggy is really the least problem.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

ingemann, this is admittedly not directly comparable but I'm going to submit that what Iggy Azalea is all about is a sort of distinctly uncomfortable middle ground between this and the sort of good-faith cultural exchange that you seem to assume it is: Do you understand what the problem with minstrel shows is?

Yes I do, the fact that they ridiculed Black people and portraited them as buffoons.

Here's the thing, you can't say that Iggy act is a ministel show and say that she copy them at the same time. Unless you want to say that modern African-American musicians run their own ministrel show for the benefit of White Americans, and if you believe that's the case, Iggy is really the least problem.

Yes, the fact that it can be argued to be mimicry rather than cruel parody is why I conceded that the comparison isn't direct. But the issue is that it's chimerical to claim that mimicry can't be mocking unless the thing being mimicked is itself flawed. I know I characterized this in terms of 'airlifting things wholesale' earlier; the thing about airlifting things wholesale is that it entails not adjusting for context. As any artist familiar with color wheels and mixing pigments will tell you, if you copy something from one context to another without adjusting for the new context, the whole image ends up clashing badly.

Besides, the 'cultural appropriation' talk is kind of losing the plot in that what's so terrible about Iggy Azalea specifically isn't so much the music as the defensive, lashing-back, wounded-gazelle nature of the way she responds to being criticized for it. That, and her Twittter feed, just in general.

[ingemann]

ingemann, this is admittedly not directly comparable but I'm going to submit that what Iggy Azalea is all about is a sort of distinctly uncomfortable middle ground between this and the sort of good-faith cultural exchange that you seem to assume it is: Do you understand what the problem with minstrel shows is?

Yes I do, the fact that they ridiculed Black people and portraited them as buffoons.

Here's the thing, you can't say that Iggy act is a ministel show and say that she copy them at the same time. Unless you want to say that modern African-American musicians run their own ministrel show for the benefit of White Americans, and if you believe that's the case, Iggy is really the least problem.

Yes, the fact that it can be argued to be mimicry rather than cruel parody is why I conceded that the comparison isn't direct. But the issue is that it's chimerical to claim that mimicry can't be mocking unless the thing being mimicked is itself flawed.

You can't mock something by adopting it, unless it's flawed from the start. If you want to mock something which isn't flawed in itself, you have to change it, even if only in minute details, and what Iggy does is clearly imitation, which is the most sincer form of flattery. But if you see it as mocking, the thing she imitate aren't fundamental flawed in your opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes that's a fine opinion to have, but because something doesn't work in the new context doesn't mean that the artist copying the style is guilty of anything but bad taste.

I don't see anything wrong with the Chinese copying European historical buildings, I see what they produce as inferior to the original, but I don't see it as inherent wrong of the Chinese architects to reproduce others designs.

Besides, the 'cultural appropriation' talk is kind of losing the plot in that what's so terrible about Iggy Azalea specifically isn't so much the music as the defensive, lashing-back, wounded-gazelle nature of the way she responds to being criticized for it. That, and her Twittter feed, just in general.

... and that's a legitimate critic of her, that you thinks she's a horrible person. The problem is that it have nothing to do with "stealing" the culture of African-Americans

[free my dawg]

Cultural appropriation is bullsh#t and anyone legitimately engaging that kind of pseudo-Maoist nonsense is terrible and should be ashamed of themselves.

My issue isn't with "cultural appropriation". It's that she's actively working to undermine the culture she's imitating.

[ingemann]

Cultural appropriation is bullsh#t and anyone legitimately engaging that kind of pseudo-Maoist nonsense is terrible and should be ashamed of themselves.

My issue isn't with "cultural appropriation". It's that she's actively working to undermine the culture she's imitating.

I expect I will regret this, but please explain you reasoning.

[RR1997]

Wtf happened to this thread?

[Oak Hills]

Cultural appropriation is bullsh#t and anyone legitimately engaging that kind of pseudo-Maoist nonsense is terrible and should be ashamed of themselves.

"Pseudo-Maoist"?

[free my dawg]

Cultural appropriation is bullsh#t and anyone legitimately engaging that kind of pseudo-Maoist nonsense is terrible and should be ashamed of themselves.

My issue isn't with "cultural appropriation". It's that she's actively working to undermine the culture she's imitating.

I expect I will regret this, but please explain you reasoning.

Essentially, I believe that Iggy Azalea is different from all these other artists in that her version of appropriation (and her actions) work to undermine black culture, not uplift it. Elvis Presley, Amy Winehouse, Adele - hell, any white singer with an element of soul sets themselves apart by putting their own spin on it. You can hear their voices - even when they try to take on a black accent, and they're still relatively distinguishable. You can hear the Elvis in Elvis. You can hear the Adele in Adele. You can hear the Amy in Amy. You can't hear the Iggy in Iggy. You don't hear a blend of Aussie hip-hop and thumping Atlanta bass. You hear someone who has projected another image of themselves - an image that has been, and still is being oppressed by her race for centuries.

And even if you don't think there's anything wrong with that, there's clearly something wrong with her rapping in another accent, and then putting on her real Australian accent to dismiss this criticism of her as African-American rappers trying to "make it racial". The problem with Iggy Azalea isn't that she's a white-washed version of hip-hop. It's that she's whining about how people are making her race an issue when she's already made it one through her music.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Of course cultural appropriation is a thing...

Seriously, this is baffling. People just walk around wearing Native American headdresses as a "fashion statement" but that's not cultural appropriation? What is it then, "white people just being white people"?

[Deus Naturae]

Of course cultural appropriation is a thing...

Seriously, this is baffling. People just walk around wearing Native American headdresses as a "fashion statement" but that's not cultural appropriation? What is it then, "white people just being white people"?

Who does this?!

Anyone who actually did would just be a white person wearing a Native American headdress.

[politicus]

Cultural appropriation is bullsh#t and anyone legitimately engaging that kind of pseudo-Maoist nonsense is terrible and should be ashamed of themselves.

My issue isn't with "cultural appropriation". It's that she's actively working to undermine the culture she's imitating.

I expect I will regret this, but please explain you reasoning.

Essentially, I believe that Iggy Azalea is different from all these other artists in that her version of appropriation (and her actions) work to undermine black culture, not uplift it. Elvis Presley, Amy Winehouse, Adele - hell, any white singer with an element of soul sets themselves apart by putting their own spin on it. You can hear their voices - even when they try to take on a black accent, and they're still relatively distinguishable. You can hear the Elvis in Elvis. You can hear the Adele in Adele. You can hear the Amy in Amy. You can't hear the Iggy in Iggy. You don't hear a blend of Aussie hip-hop and thumping Atlanta bass. You hear someone who has projected another image of themselves - an image that has been, and still is being oppressed by her race for centuries.

And even if you don't think there's anything wrong with that, there's clearly something wrong with her rapping in another accent, and then putting on her real Australian accent to dismiss this criticism of her as African-American rappers trying to "make it racial". The problem with Iggy Azalea isn't that she's a white-washed version of hip-hop. It's that she's whining about how people are making her race an issue when she's already made it one through her music.

The idea that all white people are somehow collectively responsible for suppressing blacks and should therefore share in a common guilt is very alien to most non-Americans.

(btw would that guilt also include a Slovak, Ukrainian or others from countries with no part in the slave trade/colonialism?)

I think most outsiders to the special US racial dynamics/discourse would feel offended if someone racialized copying the most widely copied culture in the world - the African-American. US culture has become the cultural default option in the modern world - and there is a feeling it (and it's component parts) belongs to everyone and not solely to the creators. It is a price you pay for being so culturally dominant.

[free my dawg]

Cultural appropriation is bullsh#t and anyone legitimately engaging that kind of pseudo-Maoist nonsense is terrible and should be ashamed of themselves.

My issue isn't with "cultural appropriation". It's that she's actively working to undermine the culture she's imitating.

I expect I will regret this, but please explain you reasoning.

Essentially, I believe that Iggy Azalea is different from all these other artists in that her version of appropriation (and her actions) work to undermine black culture, not uplift it. Elvis Presley, Amy Winehouse, Adele - hell, any white singer with an element of soul sets themselves apart by putting their own spin on it. You can hear their voices - even when they try to take on a black accent, and they're still relatively distinguishable. You can hear the Elvis in Elvis. You can hear the Adele in Adele. You can hear the Amy in Amy. You can't hear the Iggy in Iggy. You don't hear a blend of Aussie hip-hop and thumping Atlanta bass. You hear someone who has projected another image of themselves - an image that has been, and still is being oppressed by her race for centuries.

And even if you don't think there's anything wrong with that, there's clearly something wrong with her rapping in another accent, and then putting on her real Australian accent to dismiss this criticism of her as African-American rappers trying to "make it racial". The problem with Iggy Azalea isn't that she's a white-washed version of hip-hop. It's that she's whining about how people are making her race an issue when she's already made it one through her music.

The idea that all white people are somehow collectively responsible for suppressing blacks and should therefore share in a common guilt is very alien to most non-Americans.

Would that also include a Slovak, Ukrainian or others from countries with no part in the slave trade/colonialism?

I never said anything about white guilt, slave trade, or colonialism, and in fact, is completely irrelevant to the topic. There is racism against Africans in Ukraine, and in the nearby Czech Republic, racist chants do exist.

[TNF]

Of course cultural appropriation is a thing...

Seriously, this is baffling. People just walk around wearing Native American headdresses as a "fashion statement" but that's not cultural appropriation? What is it then, "white people just being white people"?

So should we stop Taco Bell from appropriating Mexican food for its own purposes, then?

This idea that any cultural work belongs to a certain race or whatever is bizarre and one step away from the kind of racism that says that blacks can't do certain things because they're not white.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Of course cultural appropriation is a thing...

Seriously, this is baffling. People just walk around wearing Native American headdresses as a "fashion statement" but that's not cultural appropriation? What is it then, "white people just being white people"?

Who does this?!

Of course cultural appropriation is a thing...

Seriously, this is baffling. People just walk around wearing Native American headdresses as a "fashion statement" but that's not cultural appropriation? What is it then, "white people just being white people"?

So should we stop Taco Bell from appropriating Mexican food for its own purposes, then?

This idea that any cultural work belongs to a certain race or whatever is bizarre and one step away from the kind of racism that says that blacks can't do certain things because they're not white.

If Taco Bell were owned by Mexicans, it would make things a lot better. But I guess stopping rich people from profiting off of people who are at a disadvantage isn't Marxist enough.

And no, the second part of that is wholly false. The problem with cultural appropriation is that it's stepping over people who can't necessarily fight back because of the societal stigma of their race (ie blacks) so if blacks do something "white" then society says "ah yes, a civilized black person" but when a black person does something "black" they're met with "oh it's one of those thugs" whereas when white people do something "black" they're seen as cool, or edgy, or innovative.

[TNF]

If Taco Bell were owned by Mexicans, it would still be Taco Bell, and thus still exploitative and committed to making a profit by paying its workers less than the value of their labor and selling other workers food that makes them sick. So I mean it really wouldn't matter, because at the end of the day the owners are still capitalist swine that deserve nothing less than the scaffold, regardless of their ethnic or racial background.

What makes one or another practice the exclusive domain of one group of people? I fail to understand the logic inherent in this bizarre concept, which seems to argue that white people should not do anything, culturally speaking, that has its origins in something nonwhite people have originally done and vice versa. To argue this is to essentially argue for erecting walls between cultural practices in an effort to preserve certain cultural practices as the exclusive domain of a particular group of people, which I regard as unhelpful and quite frankly reactionary. If you want people to understand one another, cross-cultural pollination should be rigorously promoted, not derided. I am of the understanding that the universalist project means bringing together people and creating something new and worthwhile from their experiences, be they shared or different, rather than this kind of hyper-individualist atomization in identitarian politics around which things 'belong' to which group of people.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't condemn things that are just outright egregious and bigoted. Iggy Azalea has obviously engaged in a lot of things that I wouldn't defend under any circumstances, and the same can be said for a lot of cultural figures. But this shouting down and condemnation of people without any attempt to educate them on what they're doing is wrong and why its wrong, and its twin in his cultural segregationist politics is not helping anyone. It will not end racism or any other kind of bigotry, but instead reinforce it among people who are put off by this kind of vitriolic, pomo 'left' bullsh#t

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is one of the weirdest threads in quite awhile. I don't think I've seen this many strawmen or bizarre arguments in a long time and it's not even over something important or relevant. The most weird being the idea that SJWs are fans of Eminem, WTF? Not to mention Eminem ceased being relevant long before SJWs were even a thing.

No one said SJWs are fans of Eminem... but a number of news articles appeared saying that SJWs on Twitter were celebrating when Eminem won a grammy that Iggy Azalea was expected to win. Granted, they were more celebrating Iggy's loss than Eminem's win, but the idea that either one of them is much better than the other is pretty suspect, IMO. I would hardly say a guy who's still winning awards and putting out hit songs is irrelevant.

Oh so that's what this is about. I put about as much credibility in the Grammys as the MTV Movie Awards (which gave Kristen Stewart the Best Actress award four times for her performance in Twilight) and don't care one iota about hip hop music at all, so I can easily miss it. As for Eminem, he's struck me as a leftover 90s relic, he might still be well known, but it's like saying Aerosmith was still a big band in the 90s. Maybe not technically untrue but you know....

As for Iggy, I'll point out that rapping in an Australian accent sounds silly, so if someone is going to fake one, it's likely to be the most common one used in rap music, so yes reminiscent of black rappers. It seems kind of weird, not to mention also racist to insist that she rap in one of the many white American accents instead that is no more natural to her anyway. Now if you want to attack her simply for being terrible, go ahead.

[free my dawg]

This is one of the weirdest threads in quite awhile. I don't think I've seen this many strawmen or bizarre arguments in a long time and it's not even over something important or relevant. The most weird being the idea that SJWs are fans of Eminem, WTF? Not to mention Eminem ceased being relevant long before SJWs were even a thing.

No one said SJWs are fans of Eminem... but a number of news articles appeared saying that SJWs on Twitter were celebrating when Eminem won a grammy that Iggy Azalea was expected to win. Granted, they were more celebrating Iggy's loss than Eminem's win, but the idea that either one of them is much better than the other is pretty suspect, IMO. I would hardly say a guy who's still winning awards and putting out hit songs is irrelevant.

Oh so that's what this is about. I put about as much credibility in the Grammys as the MTV Movie Awards (which gave Kristen Stewart the Best Actress award four times for her performance in Twilight) and don't care one iota about hip hop music at all, so I can easily miss it. As for Eminem, he's struck me as a leftover 90s relic, he might still be well known, but it's like saying Aerosmith was still a big band in the 90s. Maybe not technically untrue but you know....

As for Iggy, I'll point out that rapping in an Australian accent sounds silly, so if someone is going to fake one, it's likely to be the most common one used in rap music, so yes reminiscent of black rappers. It seems kind of weird, not to mention also racist to insist that she rap in one of the many white American accents instead that is no more natural to her anyway. Now if you want to attack her simply for being terrible, go ahead.

Actually, rapping in an Australian accent isn't silly at all. It's basically rap blended with some sort of indie/alternative elements and has a distinct Aussie flavor to it. Stuff like this or this or this certainly doesn't "sound silly", and even has broken through to America a bit.

[Maxwell]

The last thing I will say is there is a difference between being influenced by someone and hijacking them wholesale. Azalea, by in large, has been in the latter category, which is an increasingly disturbing trend in hip hop music where "biting", or wholesale theft, was originally a cause of outright laughter at the person doing so.

But in this area, Travis Scott (Another product of Kanye's unfortunate poor taste in rap) and The Game (the most boring rapper in history who has never met a modern rap cliche he didn't like) are way worse and get none of the same sh**t, so let's leave it there.

Which leads to the shameful thing about hip hop "journalism" - they aren't treated as artists with talent, they aren't looked at is if music is three dimensional. They are looked at by "beefs", and music is broken down into this two dimensional "beats" and "lyrics". Never asked about process of music, never asked about influences, they aren't treated as serious unless it's Kanye where he imposes seriousness upon his music whether or not it's actually serious. It's so infuriating to me.

[MATTROSE94]

bad at rapping, but good at being very attractive