WARNING! EXPLICIT CONTENT!
The race-deprecation and misogyny saturating the hip-hop lyrics that American distributors unfortunately deem to make hip-hop most profitable, is obviously disturbing to most of us -- as recent outcries would attest. But calling for hip-hop artists to be fired will not work. Their music is considered to be protected artistic expression. Some of us may not like it, but neither the artists nor their distributors are likely to incur Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fines. They make “clean” versions available for radio and, although there are some videos that skirt the line of decency, they are still probably within the realm of FCC regulations. Thus, rather than dwelling on unfruitful strategies for purging hip-hop music, we need to concentrate on strategies that are likely to work.
The most effective stratagem for the eradication of race-deprecation and misogyny in hip-hop is education. The first concession we must make is that the expressions emanating from hip-hop -- just like country and western, rock and roll, comedy, and cinema -- are reflections of the society we live in. Granted, they don’t reflect the entire picture of society, but no artistic endeavor strives to or is capable of doing that.
Knowing why American society in general and black society in particular exhibits such race-deprecation and misogyny allows us to attack these ills within the black community and, residually, within the reflections of our community -- in music, comedy, and cinema. Thus, black folks in general -- and hip-hop artists, comedians, and the performing arts industry in particular -- must be educated on the underpinnings that drive this phenomenon. First I will address race-deprecation and then misogyny in the black community. In both instances I will -- as Isaiah Washington’s character in the movie “Love Jones” intimated -- “break it down so that it will forever be broke[n] down”.
Showing posts with label misogyny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label misogyny. Show all posts
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Monday, December 10, 2007
Imus vs. Hip-Hop
The following article was one that I wrote right around the time that Don Imus was fired. Now that he is back, I thought that some reflection would be good.
Once and for all: DO NOT equate the disparaging words of fallen radio/TV host Don Imus with the disparaging words emanating from SOME of the lyrics in Hip-Hop music. They are NOT the same animal. As Russell Simmons recently indicated on Oprah Winfrey’s show, the rappers in the Hip-Hop community are poets who depict the world that THEY come from and their censorship ought not even be discussed. I DO have issues with the misogynistic and race-deprecating lyrics prevalent in Hip-Hop songs, but I will address that in a different discourse that I can hopefully share with you shortly.
Parallels have been drawn between the comments of other “shock jocks” and Imus’ comments. They have been drawn between Imus’ comments about Rutgers’ women’s basketball team and other comments made by Imus. There was even an example given of some journalist calling Barbara Walters a “mind slut”. None of these comparisons hold water. They don’t compare because none of these other comments open up the speaker or their employer to slander and defamation of character lawsuits. The comments Don Imus uttered about the Rutgers basketball team DO expose Imus, MSNBC, and CBS to such a lawsuit -- one the plaintiffs could easily win.
Journalists and radio/TV talk show hosts/commentators are allowed to give their opinions about public figures/celebrities rather freely -- even when such remarks are somewhat disparaging. The legal rationale is that these public figures/celebrities depend on media exposure for their livelihood and thus have to take the bitter with the sweet. The media helps them make money and so the media is also allowed to cost them money via the opinions of these media personalities. All exposure for them isn’t going to be good and they just have to grin and bear it. The additional rationale is that they have access to other media outlets by which they can and do give their side of the story -- as with Barbara Walters, for example.
Don Imus uttered slanderous and defamatory remarks about non-celebrities/public figures. They may enjoy some notoriety because of their athletic accomplishments, but their livelihood does not depend on public exposure. They are not professional athletes. They are student-athletes. Therefore, MSNBC and CBS fired Don Imus because his comments opened them up to legal liability that could cost them -- and Imus -- millions of dollars. If they had let him stay on they would be showing tacit approval for his antics. Letting him go shows that such defamation is not condoned by them. And yet, they still could be held liable simply because Imus has a history of making similar racist statements on air. This means that it could be found by a court of law that they “knew or should have known” that he had the potential to expand his comments to specific non-celebrities -- especially if there exist no written prohibitions in this area that Imus could be deemed well aware of at the time of his defamation.
Once and for all: DO NOT equate the disparaging words of fallen radio/TV host Don Imus with the disparaging words emanating from SOME of the lyrics in Hip-Hop music. They are NOT the same animal. As Russell Simmons recently indicated on Oprah Winfrey’s show, the rappers in the Hip-Hop community are poets who depict the world that THEY come from and their censorship ought not even be discussed. I DO have issues with the misogynistic and race-deprecating lyrics prevalent in Hip-Hop songs, but I will address that in a different discourse that I can hopefully share with you shortly.
Parallels have been drawn between the comments of other “shock jocks” and Imus’ comments. They have been drawn between Imus’ comments about Rutgers’ women’s basketball team and other comments made by Imus. There was even an example given of some journalist calling Barbara Walters a “mind slut”. None of these comparisons hold water. They don’t compare because none of these other comments open up the speaker or their employer to slander and defamation of character lawsuits. The comments Don Imus uttered about the Rutgers basketball team DO expose Imus, MSNBC, and CBS to such a lawsuit -- one the plaintiffs could easily win.
Journalists and radio/TV talk show hosts/commentators are allowed to give their opinions about public figures/celebrities rather freely -- even when such remarks are somewhat disparaging. The legal rationale is that these public figures/celebrities depend on media exposure for their livelihood and thus have to take the bitter with the sweet. The media helps them make money and so the media is also allowed to cost them money via the opinions of these media personalities. All exposure for them isn’t going to be good and they just have to grin and bear it. The additional rationale is that they have access to other media outlets by which they can and do give their side of the story -- as with Barbara Walters, for example.
Don Imus uttered slanderous and defamatory remarks about non-celebrities/public figures. They may enjoy some notoriety because of their athletic accomplishments, but their livelihood does not depend on public exposure. They are not professional athletes. They are student-athletes. Therefore, MSNBC and CBS fired Don Imus because his comments opened them up to legal liability that could cost them -- and Imus -- millions of dollars. If they had let him stay on they would be showing tacit approval for his antics. Letting him go shows that such defamation is not condoned by them. And yet, they still could be held liable simply because Imus has a history of making similar racist statements on air. This means that it could be found by a court of law that they “knew or should have known” that he had the potential to expand his comments to specific non-celebrities -- especially if there exist no written prohibitions in this area that Imus could be deemed well aware of at the time of his defamation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)