Ethics and The Blues

(PROMPT AT BOTTOM) Let's assume a Lockean theory of property for this exercise, in particular his theory of appropriation through mixing your labor with the land, and including the provisos to 'leave enough and as good' and non-spoilage.  It is likely that Locke himself, and certainly other colonial aspirants , sought to justify the colonization of what is now called North America with this theory of natural property rights.  One clear response is that appropriation through labor mixing only applies to unowned land, and of course an Indigenous people had been living throughout this continent for a long time.  With a prior owner, colonial labor mixing on the territory is not a mechanism for appropriation.  In response, the defender of colonial territory rights might argue that in this particular case we have an indigenous population that did not have a recognized right of ownership of land, did not cultivate agriculture and la...

Cuttin to the chase, here is an argument from Phil Jenkins in the recent volume Blues and Philosophy from Wiley-Blackwell:   Co-edited by yours truly:) CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE:   DeJeana Burke & The Oakland Blues Divas:  Phil Jenkins. Yes,he's white Conclusion: White people cannot BCE! 1.The term ‘blues’ is ambiguous in meaning as it may refer to a distinct ‘blues musical form’ (BMF) or to ‘blues cultural expression’ (BCE) 2. BMF is in principle accessible to all, and can actually be performed by anyone with sufficient training and motor skills. 3.  White people can acquire the requisite training and motor skills. 4. Thus, white people CAN play BME. Muddy Waters 5. However, Blues as Cultural Expression (BCE) is only accessible to people that are members of the social group that created blues.  Specifically, to people that share the history of oppression and injustice of Blacks in America going...