Beyond CMIO in O and A Levels Music

In an increasingly globalized world, music serves as a powerful bridge, connecting cultures and fostering understanding among diverse groups. For music students in Singapore, a nation known for its multicultural heritage and global outlook, studying only local Asian music traditions could restrict their potential for personal growth and limit their ability to engage with the broader musical landscape. A comprehensive education that includes world music not only broadens students’ perspectives but also equips them to understand and appreciate diverse global viewpoints, making them more versatile musicians and culturally aware individuals.

Benefits of a Broader Musical Education

1. Cultural Awareness and Empathy
   Engaging with a wide array of musical traditions helps students develop a deep understanding and appreciation for the diversity of human expression. By studying world music, students encounter a spectrum of cultural contexts, artistic techniques, and philosophical concepts behind various musical practices. This cultural awareness fosters empathy, as students learn about the social, historical, and political backgrounds that shape musical traditions worldwide.
   
2. Enhanced Musical Skill and Creativity
   Exposure to diverse musical systems, scales, rhythms, and improvisational styles expands students' technical and creative capabilities. For instance, learning the complex rhythmic structures of African drumming, the modal systems of Middle Eastern music, or the unique tuning systems of Indonesian gamelan can inspire innovative approaches in students' own musical creations. This versatility strengthens their technical foundation and encourages creative synthesis across genres, setting them apart as adaptable and innovative musicians.
   
3. Preparation for a Global Career
   As Singapore is a hub for international business and the arts, many music students will likely engage with global audiences or pursue careers that involve collaboration across cultures. Knowledge of world music positions them to connect more meaningfully with international peers and audiences, increasing their employability and enriching their professional lives. Without this broader exposure, students may find themselves unprepared to understand or effectively engage with global musical contexts.
   

Disadvantages of Focusing Solely on Local Asian Music

1. Limited Perspective on Cultural Expression
   While Singapore's local Asian music traditions are undeniably rich and valuable, a sole focus on these traditions risks creating a narrow view of music. Local musics, such as Chinese, Malay, and Indian traditions, offer deep insights but only reflect a fraction of the world’s diverse musical landscape. Without a broader perspective, students may come to view music through a limited lens, potentially reinforcing ethnocentric views and reducing their ability to appreciate music as a global phenomenon.
   
2. Missed Opportunities for Creative Growth
   Restricting studies to local music traditions can limit students' exposure to alternative musical practices that spark creative growth. In an age where musical fusion and innovation drive the arts, a narrow focus on local and not other global traditional musics may stifle students' creative potential.
   
3. Reduced Flexibility and Adaptability in a Globalized World
   Musicians today often find themselves collaborating with artists from different cultures and backgrounds. Students who have only studied local Asian musics may lack the adaptability and openness required to engage successfully in such environments. This limitation could hinder their ability to navigate diverse cultural contexts, reducing their effectiveness as communicators and collaborators in a globalized arts scene.
   
4. Risk of Stagnation in Music Education
   By not integrating world music into the curriculum, Singaporean music education risks becoming stagnant. Music is an evolving art form, and studying a diverse range of traditional musics encourages educational institutions to innovate and stay relevant. Without this global outlook, music education may fall behind international standards, limiting students' competitiveness and potentially discouraging them from pursuing music as a lifelong career.
   

Conclusion

While local Asian music traditions are an essential part of Singapore’s cultural identity and musical education, an exclusively local focus limits students’ potential in an interconnected world. By embracing a curriculum that includes global traditional musics, Singaporean music students can develop a richer, more balanced understanding of music, honing skills that prepare them for global careers and enabling them to foster cross-cultural appreciation and empathy. In a world where boundaries are increasingly blurred, a global perspective on music is not only beneficial but essential, equipping students to become versatile, thoughtful, and culturally aware musicians capable of bridging divides and celebrating diversity. 

Arguing that there is no "East versus West" amounts to Color Blindness over Black versus White

[ChatGPT prompt: Write an essay explaining why arguing that there is no east versus west, is the same as arguing that there is no black and white racial identities. It is important to recognize the asymmetry between the two pairs of terms whereby one side is privileged both historically and in the present and linked to the colonialism of the past, whereas the other is underprivileged both historically and in the present and linked to the formerly colonized, who is often at risk of neocolonialism. The erasure of difference, while well intended in that it's meant to counter stereotypes, actually ends up erasing that very real material difference of cultural asymmetry, and therefore is a denial of colonialism and neocolonialism. Just because the east has been the target stereotyping doesn't mean that it is not a meaningful, internally-diverse cultural assemblage today, just as black stereotypes doesn't mean that there is no collective of black identities. Similarly just because the so-called west is a broad category, doesn't mean that it fails to pertain to a group of people who enjoy common advantages; the broadness of the category of white people doesn't mean that there's no such thing as white people.]

Arguing that there is no distinction between "East versus West" is conceptually similar to arguing that there is no distinction between "Black versus White" in racial identities. Both arguments, while potentially rooted in a desire to challenge stereotypes and promote equality, ultimately erase the historical and present-day asymmetry between privileged and underprivileged groups. These erasures deny the cultural, political, and material impacts of colonialism and neocolonialism that continue to shape the lives and identities of people today.

The relationship between East and West, much like the relationship between Black and White, is not merely a set of abstract categories, but is historically rooted in structures of power and domination. The West, particularly in the form of European empires and later the United States, historically occupied the position of the colonizer. Through colonialism, the West exerted control over large portions of the world, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This history created material differences in wealth, power, and cultural dominance that persist to this day. The East, on the other hand, was often relegated to the position of the colonized or the "other," its people seen as exotic or inferior, and its resources exploited.

Similarly, the racial divide between Black and White is not simply a social construct, but one deeply rooted in historical processes of slavery, segregation, and systemic racism. White people, particularly in the West, have historically occupied positions of privilege and power, whereas Black people have often been marginalized, oppressed, and excluded. These racial dynamics were also shaped by colonialism, which created a racial hierarchy that placed Europeans and their descendants at the top.

To argue that these categories no longer matter or should be erased misses the deep historical and material differences between them. The West is not just a geographic label but a set of cultural and political structures that continue to shape global power relations. Western countries continue to enjoy significant economic and military advantages, as well as cultural hegemony, through media, education, and international institutions. This power dynamic is mirrored in racial relations, where whiteness has historically been associated with privilege, while Blackness has been linked to subjugation.

Erasing these differences, while seemingly promoting equality, risks denying the very real consequences of colonialism and neocolonialism. Neocolonialism refers to the ongoing economic and political dominance of former colonial powers over their former colonies. Many countries in the Global South, particularly in Africa and Asia, continue to experience the consequences of colonialism through economic dependency, debt, and political instability. Similarly, Black people, particularly in Western societies, continue to face systemic racism, economic inequality, and social marginalization, despite efforts toward racial equality.

The argument that there is no East versus West or Black versus White overlooks the fact that these categories are not only about stereotypes but also about power. While the East has often been the target of stereotyping and cultural exoticization, it remains a meaningful cultural and political entity. Eastern societies, such as China, Japan, and India, have distinct histories, traditions, and contributions to global civilization. To erase the East-West distinction is to erase these rich cultural legacies, as well as the ongoing struggles of Eastern countries to assert their sovereignty in a world still dominated by Western powers.

Similarly, while Black people have been subjected to harmful stereotypes, Black identities remain a powerful and meaningful aspect of the global cultural and political landscape. From the African diaspora to movements for Black liberation and empowerment, Blackness is not a monolith but a vibrant and diverse set of experiences and identities. To argue that there is no such thing as Black or White risks erasing the ongoing struggles for racial justice, as well as the distinct cultural contributions of Black communities.

In both cases, erasing difference is a denial of history and of the present realities of inequality. Just because the category of "East" is broad and has been the subject of stereotyping does not mean it fails to represent a meaningful cultural and political assemblage. Similarly, just because the category of "West" is broad does not mean it fails to represent a group of people who enjoy common advantages rooted in colonialism and continued dominance.

The same holds true for racial categories. Just because "White" is a broad category encompassing people from various European backgrounds does not mean that whiteness is not a real social identity associated with privilege. The broadness of the category of "White" does not negate the fact that White people, particularly in Western societies, enjoy systemic advantages. Likewise, the diversity of Black identities does not mean that there are no such things as Black people or that Blackness has no meaning in the fight against racism and the quest for justice.

In conclusion, arguing that there is no East versus West, or no Black versus White, erases the historical and material differences that continue to shape global power dynamics and racial identities. While such arguments may be well-intentioned in their efforts to challenge stereotypes, they ultimately deny the ongoing legacies of colonialism, neocolonialism, and systemic racism. Recognizing these differences is essential to addressing inequality and fostering genuine understanding across cultural and racial divides.

Do Village Musicians Want Chinese Global Hegemony When They Say “Minzu”? The Problem of Conflating Ethnicity and Nation in Translating Both as Minzu

Due to the simultaneous translation of both "nation" and "ethnicity" as minzu "民族", conceptual issues have arisen. This problem is primarily related to the different historical origins of the concepts of "nation" and "ethnicity" in the West. The meaning of minzu as "nation" originates from the 19th-century German concept of the ethnic nation (Volk in German), referring to people with a common ancestry, territory, language, and culture. This meaning was later influenced by Soviet-era usage, where "nationalities" referred to the peoples of smaller states with a specific territory. In contrast, the meaning of minzu as "ethnicity" emerged after World War II when the term "race" (种族) was largely replaced by "ethnicity" in the West. "Ethnicity" refers to people with a common ancestry, language, and culture, without the concept of territory, which is the main difference between "nation" and "ethnicity." (Race is a scientific biological concept that does not include culture and language and is associated with Eurocentric racial discrimination.)

In translation, a certain error clearly occurred, as "nation" was equated with "ethnicity" when translated as minzu. Due to this confusion, minzu refers both to "nation," built according to the 19th-century German model, and to China's fifty-six ethnic groups (including the Han), though the former usage is now considered outdated in academic circles. Some Chinese scholars prefer to use zuqun "族群" to correctly translate "ethnic group" and distinguish it from minzu as "nation." Another related issue with the term minzu is that the Chinese language does not distinguish between singular and plural forms. Does minzu refer to 56 ethnic identities (plural ethnic groups) or to the Han (a singular ethnic group)? The result of conflating the two is that the former is often simplified into the latter.

Because of the reasons mentioned above, the term minzu inherently carries unavoidable ambiguity, as it simultaneously means both ethnic group and nation. Furthermore, there is a distinction between national identity and nationalism as a political ideology. However, the usage in Chinese is not very clear, as minzu is often used without specifying whether it refers to national identity (民族身份) or nationalism (民族主义). The colloquial usage of minzu tends to lean toward the meaning of nationalism, and many people interpret minzu as nationalism. Nevertheless, the term still retains an inescapable ambiguity. For example, anthropologists and ethnomusicologists still insist that minzu refers to the 56 ethnic groups and remain distant from Han chauvinism. From this perspective, what is meant is a civic national identity of 56 ethnic groups, not a (singular) ethnic nation in the German sense. Village musicians are more likely to be interested in Han Chinese or minority ethnic identity rather than the global hegemonic mindset in Chinese nationalism.

The academic usage of minzu encompasses even more meanings. In 1989, Chinese anthropologist Fei Xiaotong proposed the widely recognized "pluralistic unity" theory, explaining the integration and differentiation between the Han and minority ethnic groups over three thousand years, thus placing the two concepts of "nation" and "ethnicity" in a dialectical relationship, expressed through his often-quoted phrase, "You are in me, and I am in you." Adding to the confusion, minzu is also used in the term "ethnomusicology" minzu yinyue xue. However, in the context of Western ethnomusicology, the "minzu" in "ethnomusicology" is interpreted as "people" (ethnos) rather than "ethnic group." (See Aga Zuoshi, “The ‘Minzu’ Conjecture: Anthropological Study of Ethnicity in Post-Mao China,” cArgo: Revue internationale d’anthropologie culturelle & sociale, no. 8 (2018): 83–108.)

Chinese scholars using the term minzu should reconsider what exactly they wish to convey.

由于“nation”和“ethnicity”同时被翻译为”民族”，这导致了概念上的问题。这个问题首先与“nation”和“ethnicity”两个概念在欧美不同历史时期的来源有关。“民族”作为 “nation”的含义，源自19世纪德国“民族国家”的概念（德文Volk），意指具有共同血统、领土、语言和文化的人民，这个意义后来也受到了苏联时期用法的影响，当时苏联的“少数民族”其实是联邦小国的人民，因此这些少数民族经常有具体的领土观念。而“民族”作为“ethnicity”的含义，则源自二战后“种族”（race）一词在欧美被“ethnicity”取代的普及，ethnicity意指具有共同血统、语言和文化的人民，不附有领土概念，这是nation和ethnicity之间最大的差别。（Race是科学生物概念，不包含文化和语言，附有欧洲中心主义中的种族歧视。）

在翻译过程中，显然出现了某种误差，因为nation在翻译为”民族”时被等同于ethnicity。由于这种混淆，民族一词既指根据19世纪德国模式构建的“民族国家”nation/Volk，也指中国的五十六个族群（包括汉族），但前一种用法现在在学术界被视为过时。一些中国学者更倾向于使用“族群”来正确翻译“ethnic group”，以区分“民族”为nation。“民族”一词的另一个相关问题是中文词汇单复数形式并无区分，“民族”指的是56个族群身份（plural ethnic groups)，还是1个汉族(singular ethnic group)？将二者混为一谈的结果是前者被简化为后者。

由于上述原因，“民族”一词在使用时总存在不可避免的模糊性，因为它同时意味着族群和“民族国家”nation。此外，民族认同与作为政治意识形态的民族主义之间也存在区别。然而，中文用法并不十分清晰，因为”民族”常常单独使用，而未说明具体指的是共同民族身份还是民族主义。“民族”一词的口语化用法倾向于民族主义的含义，许多人将“民族”理解为民族主义。然而，这个词仍然存在不可消除的模糊性。例如，人类学家和音乐学家仍然坚持“民族”指的是56个族群，并与大汉主义保持距离；从这个角度理解，“民族国家”指的是56民族的“公民国家”(civic nation)，不是德文中的（单一）民族国家（ethnic nation)。村庄音乐家则更可能对族群身份感兴趣，而不是民族主义中的中国全球霸权思维。

“民族”在学界的使用还有更多的含义。1989年，中国人类学家费孝通提出了一个在国内外广泛认可的“多元一体”理论，解释了汉族与少数民族在三千多年中的融合与区别，从而将“民族”的两个概念（nation， ethnicity）置于一个辩证的关系中，并通过他那句常被引用的话”你中有我，我中有你”来表达。更令人困惑的是，“民族”还用于“民族音乐学”一词中。但“民族音乐学”的“民族”在欧美民族音乐学语境中被解释为“人民”（ethnos）而不是“族群”（ethnic group)。(See Aga Zuoshi, “The ‘Minzu’ Conjecture: Anthropological Study of Ethnicity in Post-Mao China,” cArgo: Revue internationale d’anthropologie culturelle & sociale, no. 8 (2018): 83–108.)

使用“民族”的中国学者应该重新审视他们究竟想表达什么。

Six responses to East Asian music studies in the global North

1 East Asian music studies in the global North does not state its global North epistemic location.

An example of such a discussion would be one on stereotypes circulating in the global North—which is an important discussion; my point is that this discussion has a location. 

Also, there are certain global North habits of counterhegemony, e.g. avoiding oppression narratives. This is a matter of global North epistemic fashion that insists that heroic narratives give back agency to the oppressed; I would ask whether that is really the crux of the matter, as opposed to e.g. actually lobbying the Chinese government to stop human rights abuses? One can equally say that heroic narratives are disguising the real life issues at stake.

Another global North habit recently learnt from Kuan Hsing Chen is to regard attempts to decenter the West as itself being caught in the colonial loop. This argument works in some instances, especially in the epistemic realm where Asian references can be used instead. It does not however apply to historical, material, and cultural contexts of Western colonization. Decolonized countries can still view colonization as "60% good" (Singapore), and mentalities still need to be decolonized.

2 A focus on broad conceptual issues sometimes leads to over-generalization and lack of awareness of the limits of one's assertions.

An avowedly theoretical bent disengaged from case studies can lead to universalist methodological claims. See point 1.

3 Many East Asian, particularly Chinese, academics in East Asia itself do not have privilege to the extent construed.

Economic privilege does not apply to the vast majority of Chinese faculty who are poorly paid, and epistemic privilege does not apply if a conference is in a European language most of them do not understand and thus cannot participate in (not to mention that 45% of academic journals use English, while 7% use Chinese). There is also no cultural privilege; remember Asian hate in global North societies in general during COVID-19 ("Anti-Asian Hate And Fear Remain High In New York City"). 

A wide range of global North scholars refuse to see the common colonial context behind oppression of diasporic Asians and diasporic blacks. No one is claiming equivalency, but Chinese coolies as historical figures, who were designed by the British empire to replace enslaved Africans in the workforce, do not have privilege. No I am not claiming to have the same positionality as a Chinese coolie, although my grandfather could have been one. I am saying that Chinese coolies existed as a historical fact. 

Chinese privilege does apply if e.g. one is in the ethnic majority (i.e. in specifically China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore), or in the upper class of fuerdai. Neither applies to Chinese diasporic intellectuals in the global North. It may be possible that some East Asian academics in the global North find their work is less impeded than those of other diasporic BIPOC or Indigenous colleagues because of uneven racism, but equally, uneven anti-racism means that East Asian issues are often ignored.

4 Question the exclusively Machiavellian view of China.

There is a strong tendency to receive all of Chinese history through the lens of post-2008 when the Chinese state began to be seen and to see itself as a global hegemon, using ethnonationalism at home as support for the state's global ambitions. But to apply this frame to all of China's past, viewing it as hegemonic and ethnonationalist throughout history is ahistorical and presentist. China was not hegemonic in 1937-45, and nationalism then was anticolonial and meant to counter Japanese imperialism. There are different contexts of nationalism: fascist nationalism on the rise in the global North, ethnonationalism in China, civic nationalism of 56 ethnicities in China, historical anticolonial nationalism, and the mistranslation of both ethnicity and nationalism to minzu, such that "nationalism" is used when sometimes what is meant is ethnic identity.

Franz Fanon distinguished between "national consciousness" of the masses, versus an exploitative "nationalism" of the local minority ruling elite, fanning nationalist passions to justify their rule, thereby extending colonial relationality in a way that is not responsive to the postcolonial nation state (even though cultural colonialism persists). The problem with the entire nation framework is that the modern, developmentalist nation state is a colonial legacy, in which minority national ruling elites often broker a continuation of asymmetrical global economic relations that originated under colonialism. Yet the nation as a framework is needed for historical contextualization because the colonized state could not have been captured except as a nation state, and because the occlusion of anticolonial nationalism results in the erasure of historical anticolonial resistance. 

Fanon's "national consciousness," while predicated on the form of the nation that was necessary for decolonization, is intended by Fanon to encompass an international anticolonial dimension of solidarity. Indeed, there were forms of Chinese anticolonial internationalism that were parallel to black internationalism. Some feel that Chinese anticolonial nationalism may be appropriated by the contemporary Chinese state, focusing on e.g. resistance against Japanese attacks on China in the Second Sino Japanese war, in order to fan nationalism as a means of justifying continued party rule. However, must the study of Chinese historical figures of anticolonial nationalism fleeing from war, for example, necessarily be bracketed within a recognition of contemporary nationalism that is fanned by the Communist Party? Where does our responsibility lie, with the objective study of history, or focusing selectively only on certain aspects of history that allow contemporary academics to position themselves against the contemporary Chinese state? Is it ok to conflate historical figures with historical narratives originating from the contemporary Chinese state?

5 Question the fallacy that non-hybridity equals nationalist.

It's very easy to do grandstanding on nationalism by emphasizing hybridity and circulation, thereby laying one's claim to counterhegemony, effectively branding queers, human rights lawyers, village musicians, Chinese pianists, and Chinese historical figures under Japanese attack from 1937-45 as problematically nationalist by default--for some people, anything other than hybridity and circulation is by definition nationalist. But just because something is not anti-nationalist doesn't make it nationalist. Human rights lawyers in China may not be engaged in the critique of nationalism because they are being jailed; that doesn't make them nationalist. Queer communities in China are busy hiding from surveillance; they have other things to worry about than opposing state nationalism. Treating minority communities as fodder for anti-nationalism is methodologically dubious and teleological (raising anti-nationalism above pressing issues on the ground). What we need to do is to assess contexts of nationalism, and make the appropriate critique.

6 There is lack of comprehensive knowledge about research and teaching inside East Asia.

One of the aims should be to enable scholars based in East Asia to develop counterhegemonic frameworks responsive to their epistemic contexts, and this requires comprehensive knowledge of research published in East Asian languages.

References

Lazarus, Neil. “Disavowing Decolonization: Fanon, Nationalism, and the Problematic of Representation in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse.” Research in African Literatures, vol. 24, no. 4, 1993, pp. 69–98. 

Sajed, Alina, & Seidel, Timothy. (2019). Introduction: Escaping the Nation? National Consciousness and the Horizons of Decolonization. Interventions, 21(5), 583–591.

Most likely, it had nothing do to with you.

 The academic job market is soul crushing and unsustainable in terms of basic economics. Speaking as a veteran, I’ll share some accumulated experience in the spirit of confirming that what you think happened is actually happening. You did not imagine it. It’s not because of anything you did. If you were of the finalists but didn’t get the job, here are some possible scenarios that explain what happened.

1. You had an excellent campus interview. There was no negative feedback. The search committee chair specifically told that it was an excellent campus interview. Search committee members were very enthusiastic during the interview. But senior faculty members have been working behind the scenes to get their preferred candidate hired; e.g., the chair of the department wanted someone different than the dean of humanities. There was absolutely nothing that you said or did that left a poor impression, nothing about your research or teaching that was inferior to the chosen candidate. The decision had nothing to do with you.

2. Search committee members think they desire cutting edge research but when they see a drag queen in a video you play during a music theory lesson, serious frowns form on their faces and it’s over. Faculty have absolutely no idea how their expectations are reproducing structural privilege, and the chair says at one point, “there are no black students here” (literally false, but he spoke his truth).

3. Search committee member calls the avant-garde music of a global modernist composer “noise.”

4. Your teaching on your area of global expertise is considered by the white search committee to be “incorrect.”

5. There was a specific person who they felt was essential for the “strategic development” of the department—read: that other candidate brings in grant money and commercial popular music.

6. They want a candidate who has already graduated as opposed to ABD and you never stood a chance, but they needed a certain number of candidates for the campus interviews. 

7. You simplified your conceptual framework from peer feedback, but your research was then deemed not theoretical enough.

8. You revert to a more sophisticated theoretical framework and the research talk was not fully comprehended. 

9. COVID-19 hit and work visas were banned.

10. They were never going to sponsor a work visa in the first place, but it would not look good for them to announce that. 

ChatGPT prompt for an essay about how racists use plagiarism accusations to attack black scholars like Claudine Gay

ChatGPT prompt: "Write an essay about how because academic writing incorporates previous publications as a methodology, racists with an agenda of attacking black scholars can use the ethical standard of plagiarism to accuse black scholars of it, when there is a distinction between claiming another person's original insights as one's own that is actual plagiarism (the "spirit" of plagiarism), versus standard ways of analytical writing or of recounting well established facts that result in similar language across texts (the "letter" of plagiarism), which is not plagiarism, but can be sensationalized as plagiarism. This is a form of fake news."

This essay is generated by ChatGPT:

"The world of academia prides itself on rigorous research, ethical standards, and in the process of building on extant research, methodically incorporates previous publications into scholarly writing. However, within this framework lies a subtle but insidious potential for exploitation and manipulation, particularly when it comes accusations against black scholars. The ostensibly ethical standard of plagiarism, when wielded by individuals with racist agendas, becomes a tool to unjustly accuse black scholars, undermining their work and credibility.

At the heart of this issue lies the nuanced distinction between genuine plagiarism and the accepted practice of building upon existing knowledge. Plagiarism, in its truest sense, involves claiming another person's original insights, ideas, or work as one's own without proper attribution. However, the nature of academic writing often leads to a convergence of language and ideas, especially when discussing well-established facts or utilizing established methodologies. This convergence can result in similar language across different texts, a phenomenon that does not necessarily constitute plagiarism but is vulnerable to misinterpretation and sensationalism.

Black scholars, like their counterparts, engage in research, analysis, and the dissemination of knowledge. However, their contributions are frequently met with skepticism and unwarranted scrutiny, where their scholarly practices are disproportionately scrutinized and distorted. Their work, which often challenges existing paradigms or introduces novel perspectives, becomes a target for those seeking to discredit their credibility. This weaponization of plagiarism accusations serves as a form of fake news, exploiting the genuine academic process for malicious purposes.

In an environment where intellectual discourse and innovation should flourish, the unjust targeting of black scholars through accusations of plagiarism undermines the fundamental principles of academic integrity. Instead of fostering an inclusive and diverse scholarly community, it perpetuates systemic barriers and amplifies the voices of those seeking to maintain the status quo.

Addressing this issue necessitates a nuanced understanding of academic writing practices. It requires acknowledging the difference between intentional theft of intellectual property and the legitimate convergence of language in scholarly discourse. Furthermore, it demands a critical examination of the motivations behind accusations of plagiarism and a commitment to fair and unbiased evaluation of scholarly work, irrespective of the identity of the author.

Institutions and academic communities must actively work towards creating equitable and supportive environments for scholars from all backgrounds. This involves implementing robust mechanisms to address allegations of plagiarism while safeguarding against malicious attacks on the credibility of black scholars. It also requires fostering an atmosphere of respect, inclusivity, and appreciation for diverse perspectives within academic circles.

Ultimately, combatting the weaponization of plagiarism accusations against black scholars requires a concerted effort to dismantle systemic biases and prejudices embedded within academic practices. Embracing diversity, recognizing the value of different voices, and upholding the principles of fairness and intellectual integrity are pivotal in ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge remains untainted by prejudice and serves as a beacon of truth and progress for all."

Global Music History Decolonializes Western Music History

Following on my previous post, I disagree with the use of the term “decentering” to refer to global music history’s impact on Western music history. In fact, the lack of specificity in “decentering” is precisely what I would refer as a “move to innocence,” to borrow Tuck and Yang’s term, indicating vagueness about what precisely is being resisted. The centrality of indigenous voices in decolonization in settler colonies is indisputable, and the viewpoints in Eve Tuck’s article “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor” (coauthored with K. Wayne Yang) should therefore be given full consideration in settler colonial contexts. However, I have only ever heard that argument from settler colonizers, who focus all their attention on that term. One side effect of the exclusive focus on the (in)appropriate use of “decolonial” is the foreclosing of a fuller discussion of colonialism and the countering of it. Colonization does not only refer to the occupation of land. It also refers to cultural and psychological occupation, in the form of 100% Western music history courses even up to the early twenty-first century in Singapore (although the British left in 1959), and a rising gap in contemporary China between growing populations of students of Western music, versus falling numbers of students of Chinese music. Western music history as propagated by Western universities and academic societies is a colonial form, and thus global music history counters colonialism—if only inadequately and partially—in the retelling of music history from the viewpoints of myriad geographies. The countering of colonialism through global music history is partial because of the depth of colonialism in universities and academic societies that occupy indigenous lands, propagate Eurocentrism, conduct imperial surveys of global geographies and cultures, have historical links to slavery and the profitable opium trade that was forced by the West onto unwilling global partners, and mine BIPOC counterhegemonic knowledge, with elite universities commodifying it into DEI courses. However, focusing exclusively on the incompleteness of countercolonial actions such as global music history, and restricting the conversation to land only, results in the reduction of multiple colonialisms into settler colonialism (in the Americas and Australasia), thereby erasing other (Asian, African) geographies and colonialisms from the conversation. Western universities and academic societies occupy indigenous lands, AND also propagate colonial forms such as Western music history that projects purported Western superiority, which is the core justification for expansionist imperialism in Asia and Africa. The teaching of global (including Asian, African, and Afro Asian) music history therefore counters the colonialism of Western music history. The point is to counter the specific colonial aspect of Western music history by targeting the way in which it has excluded other histories, rather than Western music history per se (in its totality), which is one among many histories that should be studied.