Name one thing that is potentially deadly to the political ambition of Senator Barack Obama and involves the youth of America.
Ludacris.
Or at least that is what the news media would love you to believe. And when I say news media I mean at least Sean Hannity, that I am aware of right now. But I have no doubt that there will be more than just a few that will try to use rapper Ludacris as a weapon against Senator Obama.
The problem is that Ludacris has released a video where he is lauding Senator Obama, and disparages Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Bush – in a manner only rappers would believe to be decent.
Here is the video – WARNING – some individuals and parents may find this objectionable. (note there are several versions of this video on Youtube, I have selected the least visually insulting version)
I agree with most of the news media that Ludacris is a poor representative of Senator Obama. His use of foul language, the N-word, and implications of women as valueless sacks of meat meant for the base enjoyment of men are all things I denounce and disagree with. Were that the only implication in the news media I would have no problem with their assault.
But that is not the case. The words and images of Ludacris are being used to intimidate White Americans. As displayed on Hannity & Colmes the lyrics are matched with images that are obviously meant to imply ‘watch out for the crazy violent Black men’. That I do not agree with.
When Senator Obama first met with Ludacris in 2006 it was at YouthAIDS ''Kick Me'' campaign to raise HIV/AIDS awareness. If preventing AIDS is not a positive, what is? What is violent or crazy about keeping our kids alive and healthy? Nothing, and it’s why the national news media had little to say about their conversation.
After Senator Obama declared his intention to run for the Democratic nomination, months later, a Youtube video came out called Obama Girl. While it was whimsical I heard no comments about how negative this expression of pro-Obama support was beyond its less than serious nature. The media was not rooting out the backgrounds of the performers looking to show how dangerous Obama was at the time. Of course at that time in 2007 Senator Clinton was still expected to garner the nomination.
When Will.I.Am made his popular and catchy music video demonstrating his support of Senator Obama no one raised an eyebrow. Yet Will.I.Am is a member of a music group that has used lyrics that while not as explicit as those used by rappers, is no less suggestive. Of course Senator Obama was still expected to lose to one of the White candidates at the time.
But now that Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, and another Black musician has voiced his support – well things are different.
But how?
This is just another entertainer that supports Obama. This is just another expression of that support. And it has nothing to do with Senator Obama or his policies. This does not reflect on Obama’s intention to get out of Iraq, or reduce energy prices, or implement a national healthcare system. It’s just a guy saying he likes Obama more than McCain in a bad way.
Yet according to pundits I have seen and read this is Obama’s problem. As if he was singing the song himself. And others have stated how this song does not reflect the social morality and family values of middle America.
But Obama isn’t singing the song. Ludacris has nothing to do with his campaign. And the most recent data states that more than 55% of all rap music sales are because of White youth throughout America. So obviously it must match up with hordes of family values throughout the nation’s White families.
The point is that I can understand debating the policy issues of Senator Obama. I can respect supporters and detractors that have substantive reasons. But to play on stereotypical fears of racial ignorance is insulting and unwarranted.
Yes Ludacris went way too far. Yes he should apologize for the attacks he made. It’s true the Obama campaign denounced the video. But what does any of this have to do with Senator Obama besides the fact that both men are Black?
Sean Hannity was wrong for the manner in which he presented this news item. He was wrong to imply the racial component as he did in his program on July 30th. He too should apologize for the over the top suggestive presentation that he provided. He is no less wrong than Ludacris. And the news media needs to stop trying to create Rev. Wright fiascos for their ratings and newspaper sales, just because a Black entertainer – or just a person in general – supports Senator Obama.
2 comments:
The following comment was originally posted at 1800blogger where I am a contributing author.
Rich Evans
Hello Michael;
I just read your blog for the first time today. I watched Hannity & Colmes last nite (7/31). I agree, ludacris (I’ve read some of his lyrics…he’s sure a NASTY guy!!!) isn’t Obama’s spokesperson. Yet I also agree, people are known by their associations. If you hang out with mobsters you’ll be suspected of unlawful activity. And Obama has had some really questionable associations that make me question his forthrightness, morality, even his patriotism. And, when those friendships threaten to derail his campaign, he ‘throws them under the bus’. All having nothing to do with his skin color. I just watched a video featuring Dr Boyce Watkins and he referenced an article that posed the question: ‘what if George Bush were a black man?’. Well, I’ll make a statement:’what if Obama was a white man?’—-I’d feel exactly as I do now: he’s the wrong man for the job; he’s against drilling, he wants to add a bigger tax burden to Americans, he’s weak on defense and doesn’t strongly support our military, he wants to create a universal healthcare program (but, rest assured….Congress members won’t need to use it.. they’ll have their own program), and he wants to take away from people who have ‘busted their butts’ to gain some independence and give it to those who, while the opportunity is there for them, they haven’t worked to achieve it. All this is in addition to other issues as well. Frankly, John McCain is my choice only as compared to Obama’s non-programs, the LESSER OF TWO EVILS, so to speak. There, that’s my position, and it has absolutely nothing to do with skin color. Thanks for reading this.
Rich Evans
Rich,
Thank you for reading through my post. Since you are not a regular reader of my posts I understand why you might believe that I am a supporter of Senator Obama. But if you want to read my views on him and Senator McCain I suggest you read my posts at VASS or Presidential Race Blog.
Some of the points you make are more fully covered at the abovementioned blogs, so I won’t go into detail here. But I want to address the core of what my post was intending to convey, which I may have failed to do. It’s about the depiction by the major news media of an image of ‘scary Black men’.
It’s not limited to Ludacris, Senator Obama, or other celebrities and/or politicians. It is a widespread issue that encompasses regular average Americans like myself. I have noted in multiple posts how television shows, movies, news coverage, print media and so on portray African Americans as dangerous and different from any other Americans – which I feel is untrue.
The manner in which Sean Hannity covered this news item is where I have a dispute. It fell back on stereotypical portrayals of Blacks that is unfair to either Senator Obama or Ludacris (though less so for the entertainer as that is his stage presence). I further have a problem when that portrayal is used to manipulate votes of Americans that might live in areas with little direct contact with Americans of color. They might take such a portrayal as accurate and thus vote based on biased and inaccurate information.
Rich, I think you will agree that while we may not agree with the policies of Senator Obama, it is unfair to portray him as a violent thug – which Sean Hannity did in my opinion. There is nothing in his record that would justify such a rendering. But it is stereotypical.
Would you find a major news broadcast portraying Senator McCain as a war monger fair? Or old, as Ludacris suggested? I would not. And in the same manner I am offended by what Sean Hannity did in that broadcast.
Whether the person in question is White or Black, or whatever, the news media does not have the right or the option of portraying them with eyes focused on typecasting and negatives based on racism, gender, or other classifications. If political questions are to be raised then it should be based on the same criteria as any other politician and on the issues at hand.
Thus if the associates of Senator Obama are to be questions so must those of President Bush (past and present), Senator McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, and so on. And I feel that any association that does not directly reflect the actual voting records and/or policies of the individual in question, if they show no influence, then I feel that they are not relevant.
Have you ever known people that are not your friend or mentor that have very different views on issues than yourself? Do you still know some of them? Does that mean you agree with them? I can say that I do know such people (like racists I served in the Marines with, or college professors, or people I have worked with, or people I deal with in my day-to-day life here in Binghamton) and that they are not a reflection of my views. I would presume every American can say the same.
So in focusing on Ludacris, an entertainer only casually known to Senator Obama as has been reported, there is no relevance. Ludacris may support Senator Obama, 50 cent may support Senator Clinton, and who knows maybe Snoop Dogg supports Senator McCain. They all might make songs expressing that support, but that does not mean any of these politicians share the full views or concerns of the candidates.
Would you call it throwing someone under a bus when you denounce actions they take in a unilateral manner that does not match your own views and in fact insults some of your supporters and/or detractors? Like Senator McCain denouncing Heegle [misspelled I know] and others. To denounce Ludacris, or Minister Farakhan, does not show a connection or politicing, but a steadfast connection to his own beliefs.
But I want to thank you Rich for having read my post and bringing up these issues. As I stated, I have dealt many of these questions more fully elsewhere.
I hope that the core purpose of this post is clearer now.
Post a Comment