Talk:Cool (African aesthetic)/Archive 1

ANYBODY WANNA WRITE ON "COOL"?
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]

uncool
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)
 * This isnt cool enough--x1987x 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Go home"?
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 cognate-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 cognate 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)

pathetic
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 belligerence 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)


 * Hey, guess what--If you lookd at the edit history, I'm not the anonymous person.


 * It's great that youre fascinated by black culture, but you take it too far--you inject it into everything. Surely it has had a gigantic influence but if we were talking animals would you make a point to say, "not only are there animals around the world, there are animals IN BLACK CULTURE, and IN AFRICA?"


 * It does not have its roots in black culture. As if people from previous societies were inapable of defining a concept of someone who is has style, or is very popular? Ah yes, people only started being "cool" in the later centuries, right?


 * The point is, this idea that it's ROOTED in black culture is false. RELATED, yes.


 * Haha, i like the little jabs at "heavy-weight edits." Are you also a member of the community of ultimate condescension (tm)? Ah yes, your "higher education" and your "more important" articles. I spend my time writing paper smost of the time on social phenomenon, and they are POV, so they do not fit on wikipedia. I do not take on huge things like this becuase it could easily turn into something that you are doing--baseless.


 * And if you bothered to read anyhting about me, you'll notice I'm not racist in the least, nor am I a racist in denial. I AM however one who does not cower to say there is such a thing as REVERSE racism and REVERSE bias (in our traditional sense of black vs white in american society) and both are EQUALLY horrid.


 * Do not try to say that this is because it is about blacks. Unlike some ignorant folks I don't edi tthings saying "die nigger." I am often the voice of equality when it comes to such things. If I see something POV I point it out, regardless of what the topic is. Lockeownzj00 19:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that you claim you're not the same individual as the anonymous poster. Yet, the tone and format of your posts has been identical to his -- including beginning with a lower-case letter (until this last one). And your charge that I'm some how preoccupied with black people and black culture is echoed in the puerile vandalism I recently reverted on my user page. Just curious coincidences -- right? Okay. I'll play along. For argument's sake, let's say you and he are not one and the same.

Properly tracing a concept to a particular point of origin has nothing to do with being "fascinated" by a particular culture. Let me ask you something, Lockeownzj. How is it you are so certain that cool is not an aesthetic and that it does not have West African roots? Why are you so adamant about something (to the point of belligerence) about which you apparently know so little? Do you think you know everything? What's that about? deeceevoice 20:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * let's analyze your statements: first you're still convinecd i'm the anon. Look at the history--just look at it. That's all you have to do. I don't have to lie there. Luckily, wikipedia has changelogs.


 * Why are you so adamant about something (to the point of belligerence) about which you apparently know so little?


 * Wow. How do I respond to this? This is such an ignorant statement. Your basis of my "knowing so little" is that I said your african roots theory was wrong. To the point of belligerence? Have you SEEN your own posts? When people disagree with you, nay, when they DARE to DISSENT, you retaliate with a slew of insults of "patheticness," "cowardess," and everything else. Your paragraphs reek of condescension. "Ok, i'll play your game." "of which you know so little." It's like you are trying to be disagreeable.


 * So, without actually arguing factually you have merely stated that you are annoyed that i disagreed with you.


 * Now, tell me how African culture has any effect on the "cool" of, let's say, any ancient society that did not have contact with Africa? Did the original chinese tribes have no concept of cool? Did the Europeans, who knew of Africa's existence yet treated it as otherwise, have simply a void where "cool" would be? This African roots thing comes completely out of nowhere.


 * How is it you are so certain that cool is not an aesthetic and that it does not have West African roots...Do you think you know everything? What's that about?


 * I'm sorry, but it is so irksome when ALL someone can do is, rather than retort, essentially take what the other is saying and say, "well why dont YOU do it?!" Let me throw your own logic back at you: "how are YOU so certain about cool as an aesthetic? DO you think you know everything?" Once again, rather than argue, or debate, or discuss, even, on a point-to-point basis, you are making generalizations that scream, "stop disagreeing with me.


 * Lockeownzj00 01:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, briefly, regarding etiquette, you seem incapable of noticing that I've merely been responding in kind. Martin Luther King I'm not; I do not turn the other cheek. You step to me with crap, don't whine when you get no respect.

Secondly, you're not only ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous, you're lazy! I'm not here to be your personal tutor on African or African-American culture. Your computer has a search engine. Use it. I'm certain you'll find plentiful information relatively easily -- if it is information you truly seek, rather than validation of your own obtuseness. Then come back to Wikipedia and tell me cool is not an aesthetic rooted in West African cultures. deeceevoice 06:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you completely blind to the fact that you have come off as totally hostile? Notice how I did not say, "I dont know that it is and I can not find the proper time to research." What I am saying is you are a blatanly Afrocentric author. This has nothing to do with racism--you let this bias get into all of your work.

You have to date still no proof of this, you have still not show any evidence, and only repeated very vague arguments about my obtuseness. Every part of the world is very important in its own way. One thing that is true, however, is that the world does nto revolve around Africa and its peoples as you seem to think. All continents and all peoples effect each other, Africa OR people who happen to hav ea brown skin color are in no way the holy grail of the universe, NOR are those with any other pigment.

I don't want respect. And if you are hostile, that is one thing--but to be hostile and to CLAIM that you are being conversational, or even kind, is a lie.

So. I put the question out in the public forum again. How, pray tell, did Africa and its indigenous population invent time travel, make itself ubiquitous across the span of time, and effectively introduce the subconscious concept of "cool" to all races and human beings? It would be fascinating to know. Lockeownzj00 03:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about being "conversational" or "kind"? lol You're kidding -- right?  Do some research, and then maybe I'll have something to say to you.  Of course, rather than take some initiative toward and responsibility for your own education -- or, you can continue to sit around and wait for someone else to enlighten you.  deeceevoice 03:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is a encyclopedia, and we must make sure to provide sufficient informations. Probably many readers will ask the same questions Lockeownzj00 asked after reading this article.

You can hardly put a label on this article, informing readers that you are "not here to be your personal tutor on African or African-American culture. Your computer has a search engine. Use it. I'm certain you'll find plentiful information relatively easily"

If that's what you understand about an encyclopedia, then why even bother to start a page?

I actually agree with the previous speakers.

The article lacks sufficient informations, the title is inappropriate (cool aesthetic is commonly associated with 'asian cool') and there is no evidence/reference provided that the term 'cool' originated in West africa. Further more, there many aspects to the word cool which are not mentioned.

This site needs a lot of work. Pharlap 03:14, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course, rather than take some initiative toward and responsibility for your own education -- or, you can continue to sit around and wait for someone else to enlighten you.

Not condescending at all, right?

Enlighten me? Take responsibility for my education? The picture youre painting is a fat lazy mechanic in a trailer park who trolls on wikipedia who really IS too lazy to do anything he preaches. What's actually happening is there is no responsibility needing to be taken--you have quite simply put a baseless biased fact in an article and we are calling you on it. Wikipedia is (fucking) awesome but it's a shame sometimes that pages like this have to suffer because of arguments over things that really shouldnt even have to be argued about.

And you still have no response. Still! You just repeat like a broken record, "do some research." And if I do some research and still come to the opposite conclusion? And that's not to say that I haven't already.

I want to simply edit this out, but I can't--we obviously have to reach some sort of consensus but I don't know if that's going to happen. I feel like I'm trying to edit out "the sky is purple" from an article and somehow it's not getting done.

Lockeownzj00 03:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What I've written is fact. You rudely, arrogantly and ignorantly challenged it -- without asking questions first.  You simply ASS-umed I had fabricated my entry.  Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have a problem pullin' your coat, but given your belligerence, I'm not so disposed.  I don't have time for such obnoxious bull from the intentionally obtuse.  Like I said, the information is readly available on the Internet -- if you care enough to find out the facts.  Of course, the article should be expanded, which I'm certain would answer some of your questions -- but I don't have the time at the moment.  You can either wait until such time as I do, until someone else who is knowledgeable on the subject does so -- or, as I suggested earlier, you can get off your keister and do your own research.deeceevoice 23:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Verbosity
One user deleted the explanation of "cool" so that it was described as merely an "aesthetic" -- but not explaining what the aesthetic was. I reverted the edit. IMO, it was a silly thing to do. That's like defining India as simply "a country." Presumably, the member didn't delete the business about cool having roots in West Africa, because that information is very easily available on the web. However, a succinct statement of what the "cool" aesthetic is may not be so easily available -- so, the Wiki member stated the (IMO) simple, direct language was "pretentious" and "verbose" or something to that effect. There is nothing pretentious about the language at all; it is dead-on accurate. Such agitation and aggravation over a simple definition of a subject that the individual doesn't seem to know much about, to begin with! I wonder if he would presume to delete language on some other subject with which he is unfamiliar (perhaps, plastic electronics?) simply because it irked him. Being quarrelsome for the hell of it -- when you know you don't know much about a subject (and anyone who could question/challenge "cool's" origins, doesn't know squat about it) -- is simply counterproductive. More info will come; it's hardly some kind of state secret. Nor is it rocket science. I'm sure as I write this, folks are reading up on "cool." And that's a good thing. The more knowledgeable contributors, the better. deeceevoice 04:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I love how any mere questioning of a subject is taken to indicate an obvious ignorance and inability to comment whatsoever on that subject. Nice! C'mon DC let's be reasonable. I took out the section: "of motion and interval, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence"


 * from "a complex aesthetic of motion and interval, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence, that has its roots in various West African cultures."


 * You claim to be an expert in all things cool, so tell me, what does "of motion and interval, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence" mean? Because if you ask me it is merely a string of contradictory 50 cent words strung together to appear important. They tell the reader absolutely Nothing about what the definition of cool actually is! It's just a bunch of adjectives. Wikipedia style conventions urge an avoidance of excessive verbosity and subjectivism. A description should be as concise, clear and unambiguous as possible. This does not really conform to such a standard I'm afraid.--Deglr6328 04:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't claim to be an expert in anything. The aesthetic is about apparent opposites or certainly competing constructs inhabiting the same space -- or at least one being/inhabiting the interstice of another in time and space. It's in African dance/movement, in African music, in art.  I have no problem with the change from "appropriated" to ... whatever it was (I forgot what you changed it to.)  That wasn't my language in the first place.  No, the passage isn't subjective at all.  The subject has been written about extensively.  And "verbose"?  The definition is hardly verbose.  An aesthetic is not a dog or some other physical object. As a concept, a framework of values, its proper explanation takes some development. The meaning will become clearer as the article is developed.     deeceevoice 05:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That makes absolutely no sense. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by your lack of a cooperative attitude on the talk pages. I'd like to get some more opinions on the topic so I've listed at RfC.--Deglr6328 05:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "This is not some disputed claim. Among those who are familiar with West African culture and Af-Am culture, this is not remotely in question.The definition is clear." That's fine, then just provide a citation, because many people on wikipedia might just question it. Arguments from authority without corroboration should not be part of wikipedia. And while you may see this idea's questioning as some inexcusable breach of decorum, many others would see it as a perfectly valid curiosity.--Deglr6328 06:29, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Line
I've come here from the 'requests for comment' page, and I have no interest in the tiff going on above this line. I believe that this page has a future, although in its present form it needs a lot of work. In rough order: - "Cool is a complex aesthetic of motion and interval, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence". This should be written as "Cool has been described by (source) (source) as an aesthetic of motion and interval etc". If it is not however a direct quote, it should be shortened to "Cool is an aesthetic that has its roots in ...". The opening paragraph throws the rest of the article askew - which is solid enough, albeit short - because it puts one in mind of a university essay or tract; - The article needs sourcing, a lot of sourcing. In its current form, it seems like a condensation of the back cover blurb of old white writer Lewis MacAdams' 'Birth of the Cool'; - "In the context of a mutually reinforcing ethnic, cultural or social group, or clique, being perceived as "uncool," "lame," or "wack" can be a source of embarrassment or shame and engender ostracism by the "cool" group." - perhaps more could be made of how 'cool' is therefore part of a much wider system of social self-ordering; of how 'cool' permeates the worlds of fashion, literature, art and so forth, not just popular culture; of how it is a potent weapon in the marketing war; - The article needs a picture of someone or something who is cool, such as Takeshi Kitano - lauded, as far away as Australia, as "limitlessly cool", ninjas - described by a published author as "cool", with the qualification that "by cool, I mean totally sweet"  or a Raleigh Chopper; - There should be more concrete examples of cool as an aesthetic, otherwise the article might as well boil down to some extra paragraphs at cool. As it stands now, I have a mental picture of pimps limping, and perhaps graffiti, which isn't yet mentioned in the article, despite being "perceived as countercultural" - and on a strategic level, graffiti is cool, visually distinctive, socially-aware, and a powerful political weapon; - No mention of jazz! When I think of 'cool', I think of unemployed French people, in cafes, smoking gauloises, reading Jean Paul Sartre, trenchcoats etc. Perhaps the article could define traditional perceptions of 'cool' - in the Lewis MacAdams sense - and the more widespread, modern use of the word; after all, popular youth culture appears to revolve entirely around cool-ness. - As a separate issue, I would alter the word 'wellness' to 'well-being'; the article on Wellness isn't cool at all. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Restored reference to jazz Deeceevoice removed from the original cool page. 172.176.199.4 17:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read any further than the first two paras. No time. Of course, I disagree with the deletion of the description of "cool." It is not a direct quote, but my own language (I've never read MacAdams), so I'll go with it for now -- until I (or someone else familiar with it as an African aesthetic) has the time to address it in further detail. As promised, the sources/cites will come, and the introductory explanation of cool will be further explained. I placed the paragraph addressing the various meanings of "cool" in a pop culture context, because some uses are not, to my knowledge, applicable to its African beginnings; but are the result of an evolution of the term over time. I agree with the change/link from "wellness" to "well-being"; the link always struck me as rather off the mark. User 172.176.199.4's reference to jazz caused me to return to cool and include cool jazz. (Thanks.) And of course it is entirely appropriate to mention jazz in this article. I removed the subject from cool only because jazz has no connection to the English language "cool" as a temperature or calmness, but comes out of African-American AAVE, African-American culture, generally, and its (obviously) African roots. But a photo of cool? MILES (if we can find one without copyright problems)! (Who else?) deeceevoice 11:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

??
DC, you write that ""Arrogant self-awareness" seems precisetly what the writer intended -- and it is accurate." Though I don't see how merely being self-aware can be arrogant. Conversely if someone is self-absorbed or self-centered it is usually described as being nearly synonymous with arrogance. As is stated a couple sentences later "Likewise, outsiders may often deride the "cool" group as merely self-centered or conceited." Maybe you could explain what exactly MacAdams meant?--Deglr6328 23:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Conservative sociology
My reorganization of the article attempted to make it into an article on the cultural aethetic and phenomenon of 'cool.' The subsequent reorganization by another user changed the intro to this: What does this mean? Why did West African cultures have more "motion and interval" etc. than other cultures. Also, does this refer to the culture in West Africa prior to the 1700s, when West African culture started to travel to other parts of the world? Why does that influence supercede the actual historical etymology of the word, "applied since 1728 to large sums of money in order to give emphasis to amount."
 * "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."

I think this article should probably be a conservative sociological and anthropological article that doesn't make bold claims not rooted in established research. Best, Nectarflowed T 10:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your edits, though, presumably, well-intentioned, perverted the article into something it was not intended to be. Your mentioning of English and shallow pop culture "cool" first and then relegating mention of cool's essential Africanness to a small paragraph near the bottom of the page were completely unacceptable.  I've returned the piece to its original integrity/intent.  deeceevoice 11:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Restoration of original language and clarification
I've finally managed to return to this piece. I've restored my original definition, which I hopefully have explained more fully. I felt it necessary, because this article was beginning to drift from the original subject matter I had intended to deal with when I separated "cool (aesthetic)" from cool. (This is understandable in light of the watered-down/truncated definition produced by subsequent edits.) Perhaps people now understand cool a bit more as a fundamental value/concept in African/African-American culture, as opposed to some shallow, amorphous pop-culture kitsch, or inane catch phrase. deeceevoice 13:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The VfD
The Vfd was, IMO, a major breach of Wiki etiquette. The "contributor" who initiated it gave no indication that such was his (her?) intent, giving no oportunity to discuss such an action here. Clearly, this piece is not original research, as the, presumably, failed VfD charges -- as is indicated by the sources clearly cited in the article. When apparently long-held assumptions based on ignorance are asserted out of arrogance or obstinacy, wrong-headed actions such as this are the result. I urge readers of and editors of this piece to, as I am currently doing, do their own research on the subject, remain open-minded, and contribute accordingly and in good faith. The result, I believe, will be another informative article of high quality and interest to Wiki users -- on a subject that helps round out this project, which is heavily skewed toward white, Western culture. deeceevoice 13:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

so, because it is, you have to make stuff up? we had this discussion before and you're alone in your thoughts. why don't you make articles on actual african-related topics, if you are so afro-centric? Because that is what you are: afro-centric. And it is just as bad as being ethnocentrically white, or anything else. You just keep tweaking and tweaking this skewed article and get offended when anybody points it out. It's not about "just do research and you'll see cool originates from africa." You are very much trying hard to relate everything back. I was told by another before to give up trying to argue with you because you do not listen, but I can't believe it's been this long and the article is still slanted. You interpret people calling you on your afrocentrism as ignorance. What is it really? Facts. And you take it down a road that isn't there--what, are we racist for saying this? No. Of all people, especially me, there is no underlying racism here. If you want to write about the african-american/african cool aesthetic, you can include it in the article, but you refuse to allow the article to expand beyond this point. This is called bad wiki-editing, and it's a shame that you have basically squatted this article and claimed it your own. Lockeownzj00


 * Actually, you're the first who has charged me with being "afrocentric" in this article. What's the matter?  What about (white, British) Robert Farris Thompson?  Is he "afrocentric", too?  That's really funny. :D Further, I am expanding the article -- within the confines of the intended subject matter:  the cool aesthetic, which is an African phenomenon.  If you wish to write about "cool" in another context, then, by all means do so -- in an article appropriate to the subject matter.  Be my guest.deeceevoice 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * you're afrocentric with everything, and the worst part is you won't admit it--oh, you say you have an interest in black and african culture, but there's a fine line between taking an interest and being blatantly biased. Everything and everything relates to Africa, according to you--and while it has immense influence in history, and understandably most countries and peoples of any kind have influence of some sort, you will have none of that. You tirelessly argue on talk pages, thinking people are racist, thinking people are villifying you, when theyre really just telling you waht you're DOING, and why it needs to STOP. The Cool Aesthetic is not an African phenomenon. It can occur in African culture, just like any other. The article as it is now is useless and biased. It is not informative. Last time you "yelled at me" (since that what it was--not a discussion of any kind about justifying your edits), you kept telling me how if i didn't have enough time to educate myself, i shouldn't bother commenting. Why is this not reciprocated? You're assuming it is ignorant to think that everything can not be traced back to africa. You tell everyone that you are fed up, done talking to them until they take the time to research. Unfortunately, it seems you, yourself, have done the least amount of it.


 * and since when did you have to be black to be afrocentric? Lockeownzj00


 * I'm afraid, Lockeownzj, I've nothing more to say to you on this. You've presented nothing of value (unless I've missed it) to the article; yet, all you can do is criticize and make personal accusations about my presumed afrocentrism -- which is counterproductive and totally off the subject.  If you have some substantive information to offer on the African aesthetic of cool, then please offer it.  Otherwise, don't waste my time.  Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 02:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "don't waste my time?" so because i haven't contributed to the article, i must be wrong. it's not off-subject to say that this article is completely slanted and that you should allow rewrite--as youve basically claimed this article your own. i actually ADMIT i'm not a scholar on this subject, unlike you--who clearly isn't. you keep saying "if you have any information to offer on the african aesthetic of cool..." why don't you make an article that's just THAT? Don't take over the main article with your POV views--bring them to a separate article. this article is not about that sub-category: it can include it, but you have made the subject something other than what it was intended to be. Lockeownzj00

If you will check this article's edit history, you will see that cool was originally merely a disambiguation page. I began an article on the "cool aesthetic" with the intent of devoting it to precisely this topic. When my original definition had been so watered down by other (unknowledgeable) contributors that the original intent of the article was getting lost, I left for other projects until I had more time to devote to this one. I returned, as promised, with additional information and returned the article to its original focus. This article was always intended as an article on the African cool aesthetic. Again, if you would like to write an article on "cool" in some other context (cool cash, or temperature, or whatever suits your fancy) -- or butterfly nets, or Hershey chocolate bars, or anything -- please, feel free. Because griping about this article on the African cool aesthetic, which is a subject about which you admittedly know nothing, and complaining that it doesn't say what you think it should (even when you've already said you know next to nothing of the subject under discussion) makes absolutely no sense at all. Perhaps your energies would be better spent on something to which you can contribute in a substantive manner, about which you actually know something. I've already tried to respond to whatever valid concerns you've expressed. The rest is, frankly, name-calling clap-trap. And now I'm done. deeceevoice 03:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "This article was always intended as an article on the African cool aesthetic." No--it was only intended to be this BY YOU. Then you go on to say, "Again, if you would like to write an article on "cool" in some other context (cool cash, or temperature, or whatever suits your fancy) -- or butterfly nets, or Hershey chocolate bars, or anything -- please, feel free." That's now what I'm talking about and you know it--I'm talking about cool as an aesthetic. And cool as an aesthetic is NOT just an african phenomenon. The equivalent of this sort of work on another article would be the article on religion being only about Christianity--it's ignoring all other aspects of it. This is NOT the african cool aesthetic--that can be a sub-section OR its own article. This is THE COOL AESTHETIC ON THE WHOLE. I said I am not qualified as a scholar--and neither are you--but this doesn't mean I know nothing about it. If you make the claim that the concept of happiness originated in Africa, I would also have to correct you, for obvious reasons. None of this has been name-calling clap-trap. You STILL have avoided the basis of my claim--you refuse to let this article be NPOV. I called you afrocentric--that is not untrue. I suggest you keep a level head and remember what wikipedia is about: knowledge.

Lockeownzj00 21:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I am the one who initiated the article. Presumably, when one begins an article, it is about a specific subject.  And the specific subject of this article was -- and is -- cool as an African aesthetic.  And you presume to advise me to "keep a level head" -- you who called me the "Black Panther of Wikipedia" (or some such idiotic comment)?  ROTFLMBAO!  Yeah, I'm Afrocentric.  So, what of it?  Just get over it.  If you've nothing constructive to contribute, move on.  deeceevoice 14:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

(From the VfD page): "I repeat, the VfD was groundless. VfDs are not to be used to resolve content disputes. People voted -- and you lost. The scope of the article has been broadened, yes, but its treatment of the cool aesthetic as African in origin has not. Further, the language in the opening paragraph also appears later in the article, so you might want to think again about dropping this 'bad-faith VfD' based on some misguided notion on your part that the fundamental assertions of the piece have, or will, change. As far as the article in its present state, you weren't too concerned about jumping to conclusions based on your ignorance of the subject matter and where the article stood a few days ago. As with any article on this web site, it is unfinished -- and was clearly still undergoing major development (and still is) when you initiated this process designed to push your particular point of view, rather than honor the Wiki process. 'Non-sequitor claims'? Yeah. Tell it to Thompson. Again, your ignorance and obstinance are showing. *x* But, hey, if you want to just slink away based on the fact that the VfD has been voted down by more than two to one at this point, be my guest.deeceevoice 02:11, 23 July 2005(UTC)"

Cool (African aesthetic)
Deeceevoice, just a suggestion. You may be able to cockblock people like Lockeownzj if you move this article to Cool (African aesthetic) and allow them to create a Cool (aesthetic) article that focuses on broader cool aesthetics in the Western world (with references to how the African aesthetic has informed the others). Sounds a little overparticular, but otherwise you're likely to be fielding complaints that "the cool aesthetic predates and transcends African culture, dammitt" into the foreseeable future. Just an idea. I realize you've already split from the main cool article, but maybe this one added step would help. Babajobu 08:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey, Baba. I appreciate the suggestion.  When I started expanding this article a few days ago, I did so with the expectation of changing the name, with the "cool aesthetic" possibly being a subhead within it -- and was about to do so as part of the edits I made yesterday (or the day before, I can't recall).  But when I discovered the VfD, I thought it would be considered an act of bad faith to rename the article at that point, an attempt to willfully subvert the VfD process.  I'm not terribly concerned at this point about the VfD, so I'm content to wait until the VfD process is completed before I rename the piece.  In fact, because of pressing deadlines, I'll likely not do any more editing on the piece for a few days.  (Frankly, I think it is completely without merit and that it will fail.)  The problem with your suggestion, however, is that it still leaves room for the ignorant precisely to make such an argument, when cool is an African concept and the source of the cool aesthetic.  Leaving space for them to write an uninformed article based on ignorant presumptions simply because they know nothing of pre-cool pop culture and assume cool to be either Western or somehow universal in origin is not the answer, eitherr.  Peace.  deeceevoice 10:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "when cool is an African concept and the source of the cool aesthetic." good job on making baseless claims again deecevoice ;D

the thing you fail to realise is that hip-hop mainstream MTV culture isn't the only culture in the united states--'and there are thousands of different non-african, non-ORIGINATING-in-africa connotations to the concept. it is not the "uninformed." you are rationalising things--you could convey this as an insult. it is pejorative. but i am saying what i believe you are doing: attempting to justify your (in my view) ridiculous actions. i would agree--move it to that article. this way the main cool (aesthetic) article can be expanded, and there could be a section on the origins of black culture "cool," african "cool," which says, as most wikipedia articles do about large, detailed topics, "see main article at cool (african aesthetic)." Lockeownzj00 21:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Lockjaws, please confine your nastiness to the VfD. Let's at least try to keep this discussion civil/productive. You're perfectly within your rights to write about cool in cultural traditions elsewhere. Again, this article is about the African aesthetic. Funny how, though, even the article on cool comes back to -- guess what? -- African American culture. Any other attempt to examine pop culture "cool" and its origins, however, would only be redudant; because any scholarly treatment of the subject will always return to African Americans/Africa. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. Go for it. deeceevoice 02:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD
This article was listed for deletion; the result was to keep. See Votes for deletion/Cool (aesthetic) for a record of the votes and discussion. Postdlf 05:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag
To avoid an NPOV tag, this article needs to be moved to its new name and needs to provide inline attribution to controversial claims (according to...). This is standard in college-level work. Please respond with professionalism.--Nectarflowed T 06:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to see this article tagged as NPOV. A lot of it seems quite arbitrary, and dc's behavior on the talk :page does not lend more credence.
 * --70.49.165.24 00:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a WikiBook?
Am I the only one who thinks this sort of article should be a WikiBook, and not a Wikipedia entry? Wikipedia articles are supposed to report facts(of the near-universally acknowledged sort) and opinions in a simple, comprehensible, objective manner. Wikipedia wasn't meant for imparting vague philosophies, no matter how valid, nor was it intended to serve as a sounding board for unsubstantiated speculation and fringe hypotheses.

Does the academic community generally agree that Marlon Brando and James Dean emulated some African philosophy of tranquility, luminosity etc.? Have sociologists generally come to accept that pimps and jazz musicians derive their mojo from said philosophy? If not, this school of thought should be clearly described as just that - a school of thought. Some info on where said school of thought originated and who supports it at present might also be welcome.

Furthermore, a bit of detail would be nice. Africa isn't a monoculture, and some sense of where this aesthetic of cool originated would be appropriate. Not to mention etymology. To the furtherst of my knowledge, "cool" was never an African word.


 * I agree, or there should be some citations. The citations only refer to an aesthetic of cool; there are none that support the "mask of the cool" or the claim about epistemology and ontology. --Delirium 07:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been busy with other things, including other articles on Wikipedia, but will return to this before the end of October to address your concerns. I'm sure it'll be before then, but I can't be more specific than that at this point. Brando and Dean have nothing to do with cool as a philosophy, but with the phenomenon as an aesthetic. But "...pimps and jazz musicians derive their mojo..."? That's kinda funny. And, no, Africa is most certainly not a monoculture, but according to Thompson, cool is a philosophical construct that pervades African cultures cross-regionally, thus prohibiting me from characterizing it as strictly, for example, West African. And the phrase "mask of the cool" is taken directly from Thompson's works. Peace. deeceevoice 14:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Empty
There are empty sections. If this page is to be moved or deleted, there still shouldn't be any sections without info. Also, a reader who is attempting to gain information on this subject will not find this artical a valuable resourse, as it does not explain what cool as an african philosophy is. On an entirely different note, I suggust that you create an archive for the statements above that consist primarally of deeceevoice and Lockeownzj00 challenging eachother and making negitive and unproductive personal remarks. This is not an example of a useful use of a wikipedia talk page and although it makes quite intresting reading, I am quite sure that that was not its purpose. What exactly the function of this disscussion is I cannot discern, however it should not be deleted and instead archived in the spirit of free speech.-- Akako  |  &#9742;  01:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

....
Wow. This article struggles to desribe what cool means. It's main usage in the modern world is not an obscure african philosophy. It's meaning as being what popular culture perceives as being the best of the best is not expressed in the opening of the article. (or is it? I can't tell, I cannot understand the opening paragraph - it seems to be just intellectual-elite word throwing). basically, yah this article needs a helluva lot of work and i'm not going to be the one to do it. SECProto 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)