The post goes on to say that the use of four letter words could be the fuel to incite riots and rebellion against the status quo. How? Of every riot I have ever heard being created I have never heard that it was done through the use of four letter expletives. To be honest such words are far too crude and simplistic to incite much more than perhaps a fistfight. I would suggest that readers who believe this is possible go over the speeches of some of the greatest leaders the world has known. Whether they were completely evil, such as Hitler, or peaceful, like Mahatma Gandhi, or forces of good, such as John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, you will not find four letter expletives used.
But perhaps one of the most incredible things that I read was the comparison of the words of Malcolm X to 50 cent. As incredulous as that may seem it was proposed. I obviously have deep reservations and disagreement with this comment. I'll take a moment to debunk that now. The actual statement is:
They understand that the only difference between the radical militant Black Power leader of 1967 and the gangsta rapper of 2007, is content and misdirection of rage. In other words, the degrees of separation between Malcolm X and 50 Cent are not as much as one might think.
I believe that if you compare 50 cent with a man the caliber of Malcolm X is to insult the memory and actions of Malcolm X. I'll let the words of each proved this point. The following is an excerpt from one of the songs by 50 cent:
The following is an excerpt of a speech by Malcolm X:
When I was in Africa in May, I noticed a tendency on the part of the Afro-Americans to, what I call lollygag. Everybody else who was over there had something on the ball, something they were doing, something constructive. For instance, in Ghana, just to take Ghana as an example. There would be many refugees in Ghana from South Africa. But those who were in Ghana were organized and were serving as pressure groups, some were training for military -- some were being trained in how to be soldiers, but others were involved as a pressure group or lobby group to let the people of Ghana never forget what's happening to the brother in South Africa. Also you'd have brothers there from Angola and Mozambique. But all of the Africans who were exiles from their particular country and would be in a place like Ghana or Tanganyika, now Tanzania, they would be training. Their every move would still be designed to offset what was happening to their people back home where they had left.
The only difference on the continent was the American Negro. Those who were over there weren't even thinking about these over here. This was the basic difference. The Africans, when they escaped from their respective countries that were still colonized, they didn't try and run away from the problem. But as soon as they got where they were going, they then began to organize into pressure groups to get governmental support at the international level against the injustices they were experiencing back home.
I think it's quite clear that the difference between the two is explicit. To try and justify a subgenre that promotes the very things that Malcolm X spent his life fighting against is unfathomable to me. To say that the difference between these two individuals is nearly misplaced rage and content is like saying the difference between oil and water is only the color of the liquids. I am angered and mystified how anyone could compare the civil rights leaders of the 60s (that actually lead the people) to the spoiled, materialistic, and predominantly convicted felons that comprise rap music today. I further believe that it doesn't take someone that has conservative or right-leaning political feelings to realize this conclusion.
Continued in part 3...
No comments:
Post a Comment