Hungarian opera singers declaring themselves African-American
index.hu
index.hu
The requirement of allowing only Afro-American singers seems unreasonably restrictive if you want it to be performed outside the US. And having an all-black cast is not the same thing. Not all black people are American. Not all black people trace their ancestry to Africa (except in the way all humans eventually do, of course). And not all Africans are black.
So mixing up black and Afro-American may usually end up being the same thing when you're in the US, outside the US it becomes a lot more complex. It becomes a requirement to hire people from the US and a ban on local singers who didn't emigrate from the US.
There is of course the letter of the rule and the spirit of the rule. The piece is explicitly about black Americans. Does that mean it can't be performed by non-Americans? By people who aren't black? If it turns out there are no black opera singers in Hungary, does this mean Hungarians shouldn't be exposed to this important piece of black culture? It does feel a bit like one of those cases where a totally justified attempt to to justice to an oppressed minority in the US turns into American cultural imperialism once you leave the country. Then again, it is a piece of American culture.
That said, the US is one of the few places where courts remain willing to determine race and/or religious identity. It isn't common but it does come up (wills, immigration/asylum, some issues involving native american tribes, and cases where people have lied on various forms). If this case can find a way into a US court the opera would not win.
I don't think this is entirely correct. It's only protected by US law in the US - in all other countries, it's protected by their local laws. That's the reason for international agreements to harmonize copyright between countries, such as the Berne convention.
Only within the US jurisdiction. US law does not superpose or replace the laws of other jurisdictions.
Copyright would probably not be an issue. This looks like a simple contract dispute, a debate re whether one party is abiding a term in a licensing agreement.
On the contrary, race is extremely useful information in certain medical contexts. Black Americans have different risk profiles for certain cardio-vascular conditions than white Americans. And European Jews suffer a higher incidence of certain recessive genetic diseases (so much so that genetic screening is basically routine for couples where both parents have Ashkenazi ancestry).
> Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
Then, further down:
> a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group
ETH'NICAL, adjective [Latin ethnicus; Gr. from nation from the root of G. heide, heath, woods, whence heathen. See Heathen.]
Heathen; pagan; pertaining to the gentiles or nations not converted to christianity; opposed to Jewish and Christian.
ETH'NIC, noun A heathen; a pagan.
RACE, noun [Latin radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides in origin with rod, ray, radiate, etc.]
1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, etc.
To quote the TV Show American Dad's theme song "Shining a salute to the American race." ... a line I thought would be very controversial but just isn't.
AMER'ICAN, noun A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or copper-colored races, found here by the Europeans; but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America.
1. It's a definition for the word 'American', not the phrase 'American race'.
2. It's from 1828. I don't think usage from 190 years ago is very relevant. Language changes pretty quickly.
3. That does not match what OP was talking about. They were talking about a further distinction within white Americans. Unless I'm mistaken.
Banning white people from playing black music or representing black culture (or claiming that this is disrespectful for the black people that created it), is as ludicrous as would be banning black people from using light bulbs, microphones, tv, spanish/electric guitars, pianos, cars... invented by white people, therefore "white culture" (and often built by asians).
Now Porgy & Bess is solidly mainstream of course, and black culture is absolutely a vital part of its context and necessary to understand and appreciate it, and there's absolutely something to be said for ensuring that it won't be separated from that context, but I think it's also possible to have it performed by white Hungarians in a way that does justice to that context, and I certainly think it's important that white Hungarians are able to enjoy it.
And then there's also the option of translating it to a different ethnic group in a somewhat comparable situation. Not sure what a good fit would be in Hungary; Roma maybe? Muslim immigrants? That would certainly make it more immediately relevant.
I think it's wrong.
>The opera house was in the news last year when it cancelled 15 performances of the musical Billy Elliot after rightwing media claimed it could “turn children gay”.