Appropriation is a strong word, and one usually reserved for colonizers. That said, it’s debated whether or not people of color can, too, be appropriators. Not long after I decided that Bruno’s new ‘fro was a cheap move to appeal to the Afro-American audience, I was tagged in a video of a young lady calling Bruno Mars “a 100 percent cultural appropriator.” In response, enraged fans have asked how she can argue that his race should stop him from making whatever music his heart desires. Listening to both sides, I realized this: Bruno Mars is not a cultural appropriator, but he is privileged.

Music is a free-for-all, and what moves us and our musical spirit is out of our control. No one can dictate it, and we shouldn’t let them. Yes, we could call a person of color a cultural appropriator, but it works against those devoted to uniting all people of color. I wouldn’t call him a cultural appropriator for that reason alone.

We, Afro-Americans, load our closets with Ankara fashion in desperate attempts to connect to the roots we lost on the Middle Passage, and scoff at any African calling us appropriators. When in reality, no one has to accept anyone into their culture. Which makes it worth acknowledging that Bruno Mars gives credit to his Afro-American influencers. Frankly, as a creator myself, sometimes credit is the most important thing.

The trouble with a classification like “cultural appropriation” is that what’s considered offensive varies from person to person. The same group can easily disagree on what’s appropriating and what’s not. Like any case of offense, it's doubly offensive to even attempt to convince someone that their perspective is not valid. Cultural sensitivity is not one size fits all, which means sometimes brothers and sisters should just disagree and move on. I think his new ‘fro is comparable to advertisers running the same radio commercial with different music for different audiences — a cheesy hip-hop beat on the R&B and hip-hop stations, and a clean corporate music track for the pop and country stations. It’s thoughtful marketing, but it’s culturally insensitive marketing because it says black audiences won’t pay attention unless there’s a trap beat. On the other hand, Bruno Mars’ new ‘fro could simply mean his label is finally letting him be himself. Either way, he’s making good music.

Whichever way you fall in the argument, there’s a chance both sides can agree on something, and that’s privilege.

What that girl should have said is that Bruno Mars benefits from white people’s preference for R&B from non-black artists — and it’s not his fault. The truth is, more and more non-black artists are making quality music with heavy influences from genres traditionally dominated by black artists. Unfortunately, with the success of non-black artists in R&B, black artists are being pushed out and overlooked. Again, this is not Bruno Mars’ fault, but it doesn’t change the situation. That’s kind of how privilege goes.

Giphy

Bruno Mars is great at what he’s doing. So are Sam Smith and G-Eazy — and these artists are giving the labels the R&B music they need without the black faces they’d rather do without. Subsequently, the sounds that Afro-Americans built are in jeopardy of being credited to the groups that are seen currently carrying said sound, because R&B as we knew it is gone. Click on a “today’s” R&B internet radio station and all we get is singing mumble rappers, Drake and more folks who don’t know if they want to talk or sing (Beyoncé included). Meanwhile, what we knew as R&B is today’s pop music, now that non-black artists are doing it. This leaves Mary J. Blige as our only hope for real R&B on the radio.

Giphy

So, what does Bruno have to do? Well, nothing. But if I were him, I’d open schools for the arts in Afro-American communities.