Avoiding Reductive Histories of Remix

Banks again calls some of my favorite scholars, including Sirc and Rice, for using ideas such as "cool" and "DJ" without understanding (or acknowledging?) the richer (black) cultural history of the terms. It seems that there is an attribution problem here, in other words.

Which is strange to me.

I understand the value of understanding the "conversation." Histories. Yet recontextualization, remix, remediation, sampling, Dj-ing seem inherently concerned with more than mere repetition, retelling of stories and traditions. (I'm obviously departing from Banks here.) Right?

Now I am calling on my own experiences, my own "back in the day" narrative, which is quite different from Banks'. I remember waiting once, with my fingers on the record and play buttons of my portable tape player, for some new R.E.M. single. I remember mixing my CDs on tapes, creating mixes. I still use tapes as an audio production medium, for many reasons. It's tactile, it's something you can write on, paint, throw on the ground, and it sounds like shit. It's lo-fi, an aesthetic in itself. Anyway, I didn't make tapes, I didn't Dj, I didn't engage in remix for the same reasons that Grandmaster Flash did, at least according to Banks. I like undercutting media, mashing, cutting, destroying sounds. I don't create to preserve, I create to break down and destroy.

Maybe I'm being dramatic here, but I think this distinction is important.
To assert that remix and Dj culture is rooted solely in the African American experience is, in my estimation, shortsighted. I agree with Banks that Dj/Remix culture is important to African American culture, but arguing the opposite ignores multimedia/remix practices that have long been a part of avant-garde practice. Futurism, Dadaism, Fluxus, dating back to the turn of the century, employed remix similar to Banks' description, but only in terms of method. The theory, the philosophy was quite different. And acknowledging multiple strains of these (re)creative methods seems both wise and ignored by Banks. This is not to say I do not agree with his critique of Sirc, Rice, and others. The use of ideas and practices specific to an historically subjugated culture is a risky affair, especially when approached with a glossed-over historical contextualization.

So how do we navigate this? That is, how do white scholars and teachers both represent Other(ed) cultures and avoid essentializing/misrepresenting them?

Does remix require attribution? Does remix require history? Or does remix allow us to remove content and method from context?