Talk:Blue-eyed soul/Archives/2019

Alison Moyet

This very typical BES-artist is not mentioned.

Racist

This article is completely racist and should be deleted. Trying to exclude a group of people who perform or are influenced by a brand of music with an idiotic, racially-charged term is indefensible. Music is music - no matter who plays it, it's the same songs. As another person has said, this topic is trash. 17 July 2018

Wiki ...

I SO agree!!! I am pleasantly shocked to see others expressing this same thought. You expressed it exponentially more eloquently than I would have had I been the first to express it, so I thank you and very much appreciate your diplomacy;-) I probably would have called it REVERSE discrimination (without actually using the word “reverse”). In reality there is no such thing as reverse discrimination nor reverse racism. Like you said, racism is racism and discrimination is discrimination. Dbreyna (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually wasn’t done. I wanted to Save my reply so that I would not lose it. I expected the Save to work as in most forms and apps, that is keep my text in front of me until I indicate I’m finished by tapping a Reply button. I just wanted to say how wrong it is to call racism against “whites” REVERSE racism or REVERSE discrimination. Such language, in fact, works to keep racism alive and well by perpetuating the idea that somehow, here on the threshold of 2020, in this miraculous country where anybody from any background has opportunity to become absolutely anything and anybody, and the sky is NOT the limit, the limit is limitLESS, but the narrative from people with a negative agenda—negative for others, positive for themselves—regurgitates and perpetuates the lie that all white people are racists, will never be acknowledged as anything besides racists (and sexists too when it’s convenient) standing on the throats of all nonwhites forever, eternally holding them down so that they can never be anywhere but at the bottom, disenfranchised and kept in submission as if we are all still living as if we’re in a time warp before the Civil War, before Lincoln’s (a Republican and a Conservative!) Emancipation Proclamation, before the beautifully expressed “dreams” of Martin Luther King, Jr, before the Civil Rights Acts, before Affirmative Action (which is btw racist and discriminatory against whites) and before 99% of the present generations were brought up to HATE racism. This last point has literally bent over backwards in such a desire to eradicate racism, the traditional kind that says only nonwhites are ever discriminated against, so much so that even today in most universities propaganda and even actual courses have over time created an entire division of whites who have been taught stringently that they should (and do!) despise themSELVES, though they’ve done nothing wrong, for the very fact that they were born, through no “fault” of their own, with “white” skin and for that must be despised even by themselves. Now THAT, friends and neighbors,is RACISM in its most hideous form, when a race of people are apologetic for being the race in which God created them. Ok, I’m overboard but I don’t care. Lack of racism means not denigrating nor discriminating against ANYBODY based on their race. Dbreyna (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What an unhinged rant. The term is over 50 years old, it was not invented by this article so it makes no sense to call the article itself "racist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.165.165 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the term is over 50 years old, and no one claimed this article invented it...but furthering it without discussion of its inherent racism is, well, racist. If the presumption is that white soul musicians need a qualifier ("blue-eyed"...as absurd as it is), the further presumption is that African-American soul performers somehow magically have "soul" and whites do not. To attribute a complex musical quality like "soul" to racial origin is, in itself, racist.

I don't think the article should be deleted. But it seems to me it ought to exhibit some awareness of the racism of the term's very premise. (At the moment I don't have time to source such an argument...but I'm sure such sources exist.) 2fs (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

If reliable published sources can be found that note or explore inherent racism behind the use of the term, then of course they should be included. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing racist about the term blue-eyed soul, but the author(s) of this article are largely ignorant about who the term applies to, such as Michael McDonald (and his version of the Doobie Brothers), Doctor John, early Rick Astley, Joss Stone, Teena Marie, Dusty Springfield, sometimes Steely Dan -- white artists who could authentically sound black to black people, and who thus gained widespread credibility in the R&B industry, unlike -- for instance -- Michael Bolton. I do agree that Hall & Oates, George Michael, Phil Collins, Average White Band and a few other people in this article deserve credit for their crossover success, but some other people mentioned aren't remotely soulful. Epic fail of an article. Please try again with more input from black folks, and from whites who actually know something about R&B. Concernedcitizenthx (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Y'all don't sh-- about soul music

This article was clearly written by white folks who wouldn't know soul music if James Brown and Aretha Franklin personally haunted their houses. Numerous artists are listed who aren't remotely soulful, while some of the white artists whom blacks love most get little to no attention, like MICHAEL MCDONALD AND THE DOOBIE BROTHERS. Concernedcitizenthx (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Y'all don't KNOW sh-- about soul music. I was laughing so hard at this article I couldn't read my own writing. Concernedcitizenthx (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)