Talk:Cool (African aesthetic): Difference between revisions

I came to the "Cool" page after editing a page on Joe Zawinul -- but I was disappointed. This deserves more than a "disambiguation" page. "Cool" is a complex aesthetic with its roots in Africa, one that has transformed American popular culture. I've got no time right now. Anyone else like to try their hand at a decent piece? Please! -- deeceevoice

I like this definition, although I think you should say African-american culture.CSTAR 15:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) While I appreciate the fact that you took the time, why did you bother? I feel your contribution trivializes "cool" by treating it as a one-dimensional term --and then you direct the reader to a discredited work. What's up with that? I thought to delete your last statement, but thought better of it, having no time to write anything more thoughtful myself. Further, "cool" is definititely African in origin -- like blue notes in jazz, like much of African-American culure. I still don't have time, but I'll come back to this. Hopefully, there will be other, more substantive contributions in the interim. Peace. deeceevoice 07:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, and take your point about the questionable reference, although that reference is not necessarilly bad just that it can't be taken as a scholarly refernce. But I do still think refering to it as African-American is correct, and there is a lot of scholarship on African-American culture which could be relied on here. Although I am quite not sure I see how cool is a one dimensional concept in this way. But perhaps I should remove the last sentence -- my intention though was this - cool was a specific irreproducible phenonenom of African-American society against racism and economic oppression. Take that away and the essence of cool is gone. CSTAR 13:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the quote from MacAdams. I deleted the last sentence. I didn't delete the reference, because I thought it is preferable to have a reference section even though the only current reference may not be a scholarly one. CSTAR 14:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If "cool" existed in Africa (and exists still) as an aesthetic before European incursions as an intrinsic part of certain cultures, how can it be narrowly defined as something reactionary? The essence of "cool" has nothing to do with white folks! But I guess we're operating from different knowledge bases -- or we're just talking past one another. At any rate, I'll return to this in a week or two, when I have time. I've changed the text back to the Africa reference. It is, indeed, accurate. Thanks for your contributions. And, yes, I agree that the reference should remain, but the quote should have been disappeared. Without qualification, it treats "cool" as simply a label related to fads, which is, indeed, trivializing it. Peace. deeceevoice 01:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) Thank you.CSTAR 02:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) [edit]

So far, you've been talking about who owns cool. That's not very informative and not very cool.

Nope. No one has discussed "ownership." "Origin," "ownership." There's a difference. deeceevoice 18:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The verb "kul" means "to go home" in the West African language of the Dagaaba and is not related to "cool" and its usuage. (unattributed comment)

Sorry, but you're mistaken, but it's somewhat understandable. Your comments/edits point to the fact that we're speaking of two separate things. Further, I never said "cool" had a cognitive-word/homonym counterpart in any West African language, and I certainly didn't specify, among the many hundreds -- and, possibly, thousands -- of possible tongues/dialects, Dagaaba. (Further, even if there were a cognitive counterpart, how would you know -- unless you're familiar with them all? It seems somewhat presumptuous.) I wrote that there is a parallel concept-word linkage. Another Wiki user indicated to me in another discussion that this article should be separated --and now I think he is correct. There is a cool aesthetic that is a distinct part of West African culture, and then there are certain limited concepts that parallel English-language usage of the word "cool." I'll make the division/separation when I have more time. deeceevoice 17:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going ahead and creating an article on Cool specifically as an aesthetic. I'll be transferring the relevant portions of this piece to that one -- and you can do what you will with what's left of this one. (I think this should be a disambiguation page, but I'm not quite certain how to do that. deeceevoice 17:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It worked. This is now a disambiguation page. I've created a separate page devoted exclusively to cool as an aesthetic with roots in West African culture. I have copied the discussion herein to that article's discussion page. deeceevoice 18:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

maybe somebody should read what is meant by aesthetic. Cool is something more like slang than some artistic expression. I find it no surprise that a long time ago that the author also wrote a long treatise on the simple cuss word "motherfucker," as if all African Americans are too busy offering these base things into pop culture and try to elevate them into some artistic status. Really pathetic. [Note: another anonymous "contribution" by a puerile mental cretin who engages in vandalism of user pages because he can't hold his own in a civilized discussion. Weak. Pathetic. Coward. deeceevoice 14:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)]

---

What is pathetic is your arrogant ignorance. In your cluelessness, you assume that because you're unfamiliar with something it's simply a fabrication -- because I couldn't possibly know something you don't -- not even about my own culture. Typical arrogance. And "all African Americans"? Only mental cretins make assumptions about all anything. You shouldn't project your small-mindedness onto others. You come off looking like an even bigger jackass.

And regarding "motherfucker," I didn't start the article; I merely corrected it. I suppose you have similar putdowns for white folks who write articles on subjects you deem inane -- or is it just black folks you turn your attention to? Don't waste your time. I don't give a shyt what you think. You're nothing but a weasel. You don't even have the guts to sign your posts. *x* deeceevoice 00:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

your "analysis" of the aesthetic of cool being somehow rooted in popular culture (which happens to be only partially infused with African American culture) is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. There are SO many aspects to the word cool as being hip and to what it describes, its progression over the years, socially accepted cools, revolutionary cools, modern cools, and so many more. The best you could do here is make up some shit about black people? This article has a lot of re-writin' to do. Lockeownzj00 02:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah. So, the weasel identifies himself? *snicker* "[My]'analysis' of the aesthetic of cool being somehow rooted in popular culture..."? Basic reading comprehension: "Cool is a complex aesthetic of motion and interval, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence, that has its roots in various West African cultures [emphasis added]." Try again. I don't presume that my writing is flawless, but belligerance and abject ignorance frontin' like knowledge certainly can't touch it. When you can explain how "juxtaposition and coexistence" applies to, say, African dance and then to, say, Ray-bans -- then maybe you'll be ready to edit my definition. Until then, perhaps you should stick to really heavyweight subjects like Star Wars or the Forces of Evil.  :-p deeceevoice 07:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In perusing my user page to make sure I caught all the vandalism by the above "contributor," I came across something I wrote earlier: "All too common on Wikipedia, I encounter a mind-set of arrogance and often ill-informed presumption when it comes to discussion of topics related to African-Americans/black folks...." No kidding. :-p deeceevoice 17:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)