art is created by conscious minds making deliberate decisions in a creative process. it could be one mind, like that of an oil painter, or a team effort like a movie

when a painter uses a mountain as his/her subject, it's plainly obvious that the mountain itself has no part in the creative process

but when a writer of some sort uses a culture as his/her subject, or uses a cultural artifact/dynamic, or exudes influence from a culture, the culture STILL has no part in the creative process. but sometimes people don't grasp this, that reflecting a social phenomenon is really no different than painting a mountain (a purely physical phenomenon). Just because the social phenomenon involved other people with minds of their own, doesn't somehow elevate it out of its subject status into the creative process itself, despite the many mystical theories and arguments and beliefs that say otherwise. Other people try to make the sneaky leap from team-work in art, to 'community' or 'collective' ownership, but that's also BS.

FYI i have no real problem with people talking about 'black music,' although i avoid the term personally for clarity's sake. my issue is more with the collectivist mindset that often accompanies the historical analysis, whether it be someone trying to say jazz is white music for using European instruments and theory, or someone saying white rappers are engaging in cultural theft but a black person who takes up rapping gets a pass (even though they had nothing to do with its invention or development personally)

individuals make music in the context of their environment
their environment doesn't make music in the context of individuals