[Yesspaz]

Give me a freakin' break. This sort of politically correct-mindedness is absurd. "World" and "Ethnic" are simply terms to help categorize the music as a non-pop offering from outside America. Yes, American record companies came up with the titles to help market them to the American market. World and Ethnic simply apply to a certain type of music from around the world - that being music that's more or less native and uninfluenced by Western music. A cd of Icelandic chants is world music and Sigur Ros is some sort of rock.

I certainly do not see the categorization of music a symptom of the so-called ugly American. Krautrock was brought up as an example, but what about Canterbury? New Orleans Jazz? Memphis Blues? Southern Rock? The reason that these aren't "offensive" is because anyone with sense knows that one way to categorize and describe music is to associate it with where it came from. If you try to descrive Iona to a friend you have to refer to them as having more or less a Celtic sound. The Black Crowes? A little Southern Rock, a little Memphis blues, and a lot of beer.

If the native land is a developed nation and they have recordings of the tribal music of their lands or something similar, it's probably similar to how native American music is categorized in the U.S. - ethnic, native, or world.

Now, consider this. Rather than see the terms world and ethnic as evidence of American ego..., remember it's the machine that is the American recording industry that is largely responsible for the recording and preservation of this music in the early years (everyone all over the world is preserving it now). Much of this music will fade into the past without recording it, so I think thankfulness for it's being recorded is a better response than complaining about what it's called.

PS: Imagine what music we've lost through the history of earth because it came and went before recording was possible....