As a minority Irish musician, I find that this seems to have a dampening effect on my ego. (Not 100% sufficient to keep me from making a fool of myself occasionally, though.) It's also caused me to be very, very paranoid about whether or not I "get it" and as a result I've had bouts of beneficial studiousness. And yes, I have to do better to win respect, and sometimes I am judged by my skin color, not my actual playing.
I thought Irish people were renowned for their musicality. Eg, singing is a common social activity in Ireland (to the point where it's socially unacceptable not to sing), and Ireland has produced far more commercially successful musicians than their population would suggest. What country are you playing in?
Correct. And for some reason, I am often the only one who ever gets asked about their origins, even though some of my fellow musicians are of Cajun, Hungarian, German, Mexican, and Swedish extraction.
For many, Irish music is tied up in the context of some sort of romanticized Irish Nationalism, and is only appreciated as some sort of ethnic tchotchke. Their imagination fails at the notion that I'm enjoying it in a purely musical context. I associate those people with the ones in the audience who can't clap on the beat.
I've heard more than one person say no one from North America can play proper Irish music. Always struck me as completely insane -- if nothing else, there were enough emigrant Irish musicians in NYC and Chicago to form their own styles of the music!
Liz Carroll has that story about sitting in a session in Ireland, playing tunes for hours, when someone says "Let's play some of your music!" and launches into Turkey in the Straw....
> in sociological terms, women are a minority because they aren't the dominant subgroup.
This is a useful sentence to read, because it helps remind me that "sociological terms" have little or nothing to do with honest intellectual framing of topics.
I'm going with the idea that you generally misunderstood, rather than the idea that you are trolling.
Consider a monarchy. The king is the majority. It's hard to imagine a world where everyone you see doesn't have the same power and opportunity that we enjoy. But you can see that cultures have existed where one guy was more important than everyone else combined.
You and I know, a pointer isn't a dog. However, people are often irresponsible, and use jargon in common conversation. Take a moment, and consider what is "honest intellectual framing" and what is a "sociological term". I think that while you may disagree, the assertion that women have less power (aren't the dominant subgroup) is a fairly honest analysis.
I haven't commented here in months, and don't plan on replying, but like xkcd says... someone on the internet is wrong. Take a moment to consider the possibility your parent poster isn't a fucking moron.
I had largely the same reaction you did when I saw "minority" used that way.
You're right. "Minority" is a really bad word for what biohacker42 was trying to say, because many "minorities" (in terms of social status) are not numeric minorities. (Blacks in apartheid-era South Africa. Women throughout history.) As jfoutz mentioned, we both know a pointer is not a dog.
It's convenient that you misquoted me, too, because doing so leaves out the part where I already conceded that it's bad usage. Which leaves me at a loss as to what you're trying to add to the discussion--did you say something more than what I've already implied (and exhaustively reiterated here)?
