Why might this be said? Well there are a couple of reasons. First there is the weakest reason, sometimes said as ‘I think you protest too much’. Basically the more defensive an individual is, especially when faced with a simple question, the guiltier they seem. How this might apply to gangsta rap (the near exclusive format of modern rap and hip-hop) would be in the responses various performers have made to the question of the lyrics used in their songs. A recent case in point is Ja Rule,
"And if it is, then we need to go step to Paramount, and f--king MGM, and all of these other motherf--kers that's making all of these movies and we need to go step to MTV and Viacom, and lets talk about all these f--king shows that they have on MTV that is promoting homosexuality, that my kids can't watch this sh-t," he continued. "Dating shows that's showing two guys or two girls in mid-afternoon. Let's talk about s--t like that! If that's not f--king up America, I don't know what is."
The defense seems to be, ‘It’s not my fault, blame someone else. They are worse.’ The protest ignores the question of what Ja Rule has done, and thus his responsibility, and tries to blame others. Now I agree that the media does have culpability. I’ve long said that executives are laughing as they go to the bank to deposit the money accumulated from the work of Ja Rule and other rappers. They are making boatloads of money (literally) for words they would never use in public (as Don Imus learned) by having rappers say it for them. And all it costs them are pennies paid out to the performers. That by definition sounds like a sell-out to me.
But that is not the only reasoning given by rappers and hip hop artists these days. There are also those, such as the ever quotable and ‘high’-ly educated Snoop Dogg and Fatman Scoop, who seek to redefine the terms they are using. Creating a lexicon much like the one used by Don King, they claim that they have redefined the meaning of words that have existed for decades and centuries before they were ever born.
In essence the argument made by Scoop was that the meaning of the words used by rappers and the youth of the nation today [I believe he means specifically African American youth but that is a guess] is separate of the meaning that has endured for centuries of use and is still maintained today.
If we were to follow this logic, the world-wide meaning of words are all incorrect, and their barely educated ‘I think it means this, and you are stupid if you disagree’ mindset is the only answer. Take Snoop Dogg’s definition of ho –
"It's a completely different scenario," said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [which announced Wednesday it would drop its simulcast of Imus' radio show] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha----as say we in the same league as him."
If his comment makes little sense I interpeted it as
But in looking at the comment made by Mr. Broadus I come to understand that he states that any Black woman that is not in or graduated from college, that is living in a predominantly African American neighborhood, that is not earning a middle class income is a ho. If these same African American (actually he does not limit this to only African Americans) women seek a successful Black man [though he does indicate their search is based solely on the economic status of the Black man] and have not achieved equal status on their own, then these women are ho’s.
Defending the livelihood of his superiors, the executives that run the record companies and pay him a portion of the money that his sales gererates, and following the path their corporate ad designers have laid out in the face of community disagreement likens itself to a Yes man to me.
In the cases I have pointed out, and many others, we see a systematic response. The medium that once held massive diversity (there were songs by Run-DMC out at the same time as Public Enemy, N.W.A., and Da La Soul) is focused on a highly destructive and profitable genre. A new crop of entertainers are ‘found’ and promoted heavily (read solely) in this format. When the genre is accused of inciting harm to the community it is targeted to, those same entertainers are used to defend it. What does that sound like to you?
I will not say that gangsta rap cannot be made. The First Amendment guarantees that. But I will say that the exclusion of any other stylesis wrong. I will say that those defending this music genre, denying any responsibility for what they have put out on the airwaves and how it will affect the children and community, are at the least short-sighted. They are making money off the backs of the community and that is wrong. Much like a drug dealer I see it as inflicting harm just to make some money for themselves and 10x as much for the big bosses. I feel its just not worth it.
Before Ja started talking out the left side of his mouth, he might have taken some time to come up with a better argument. Perhaps focusing on the film studios for the limited roles available to Black women, as in, why do Black female actors always end up playing roles of prostitutes, drug addicts, welfare mothers, etc?
Gays aren't the reason that many Black families live below the poverty line. Lesbians aren't the reason that our prisons are overflowing with young Black men and women. Can't blame gays for the senseless gang violence in the our neighborhoods that is and continues to take the lives of many Black men. And it's unfair to blame gays for the number of Blacks that are unemployed in America. Oh, and gays weren't the reason that in 2003, he punched a man in Toronto for shouting at him in a crowd because of the 50 Cent feud. Nor were they the reason that in 2004, police investigated whether a feud involving The Inc. led to fatal shooting outside a nightclub party hosted by Ja Rule. Now were they?
And I can’t lay all the blame on the entertainers. The harm being inflicted is partially their responsibility, but also that of the parents that allow their kids to be immersed in this cultural addiction. This auditory crack reaches children in part because, as Jasmyne Cannick correctly states:
Now if you ask me, that's what's contributing to bringing down Black America. Our kids are being taught from a young age, by the lyrics of rappers like Ja Rule and by parents who care more about bumpin' their song, than the effects that hearing those lyrics day after day have on their children.
Sellouts, Yes men, and Uncle Toms. Perhaps they are not the well spoken, well dressed, hard working people that are often persecuted by some in the Black community. Perhaps their individual voices are not the ones we should be concerned about but the ones that are promoted, televised in music videos, and propped up like minstrels before us.
This is what I think, what do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment