The Devil's Advocate: Imus/Rap industry

[Conskeeted7]

I think the reality that many people are not willing to recognize publicly is that they are bothered when whites or other people use this 'racial slang' against black people. However, we often allow blacks to get away with it. What I mean by that is a rapper who uses that language might not get us to buy a CD, but we're not protesting. We're not demanding that record labels fire employees based on the overwhleming amount of racist/sexist language used.

[BlessedOne04]

Originally Posted by Conskeeted7

I think the reality that many people are not willing to recognize publicly is that they are bothered when whites or other people use this 'racial slang' against black people. However, we often allow blacks to get away with it. What I mean by that is a rapper who uses that language might not get us to buy a CD, but we're not protesting. We're not demanding that record labels fire employees based on the overwhleming amount of racist/sexist language used.

I fully agree!!!

At some point in everyones life they have made a joke or heard a joke demeaning black women/men and it was dismissed as funny. When are those people going to get repremanded by the black community? Further more Imus has made numerous off color comments, why does this comment get him fired? Yes I think his comments were wrong but I don't see firing being a suitable punishment. I also want to throw the question of whether people in the minority (blacks; hispanics; etc) can be considered racists for the comments they make toward each other and themselves. For example if we say hey my n... then did we just make a racist statement? While we are supporting "artists" that disrespect to the communities they come from.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by jon1856

You answered your own question while asking it.
Just who gets the face and/or air time?
Who do the politicians try to get close to?
And who gets time with the politicians?

And I guess the answer to all of these question is more people than you know about, because there are a lot of people working in our communities who do not court publicity in the same ways that others do. Does that mean that they are not working as hard or excercising as much influence? I don't think it does.

So that you might conceptualize this a bit better, think about the heavy hitters in the white community--I presume you are white. Think about the people that you would say have a good deal of clout in your--meaning where you live--community. Are those the people that you see on the news discussing issues that impact your community? Are they the people that you always see in front of the cameras? If I were to say that John Edwards were a leader of white America, because he is a white man that gets a lot of camera time, I would get a lot of objections from a lot of conservatives who would say "he doesn't represent me", and those would be legitimate objections. He represents, perhaps, a faction of white Americans and perhaps a relatively small faction at that.

Now, take that concept and apply it to black communities. These people that you see in the news all of the time are not the only people representing us. Bottom line, there are a lot more people working behind the scenes, organizing protests, and taking action that you don't know about.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by Honeykiss1974

Well I'm sure by now everyone has read or watched the Imus saga and now, the final outcome which is him being fired from CBS as well. But I wanted to create this thread because I'd like to play DV for a minute and just post a few thoughts I've had, so induldge me.

There are tons of very well known rappers/entertainers that use the exact same language as Imus when referring to women, but yet there is no outrage. In fact, they are rewarded with high record sales and endorsement deals. I would say that these types of people are even more damaging to our self esteem than Imus because of their large influence on our your people (shoot, old ones too). Men immulate the language thinking that is how you are supose to refer to women, while young women become immune to it and think its ok.

Should we now shift our focus and outrage from IMUS to the rap industry? If not, why do you consider one situation to be different from the other?

Let's discuss!

The difference is that in rap/hiphop/etc. the artists are talking about an anonymous 'YOU' whereas in this specific instance, the remarks were directed toward a specific group of named individuals. It is a legitimate moral distinction and supports the rationale taken. While I am not defending misogynist music (I don't listen to, buy or support in any way), there is a difference. I will elaborate more later but I needed to get this said as soon as possible in this thread....

[PhrozenGenius]

Ok, time for another voice *sigh* where do I begin?

There have been numerous efforts to stymie the use of derogatory language within rap music. (Simply one element of hip-hop culture) From the late C. Dolores Tucker, to Tipper Gore, to Luther Campbell being locked up for lewdness, to more recent events such as Spelman College students protesting a Nelly appearance on their campus, Essence's "Take Back The Music" Campaign, and more subtle attacks from within the hip-hop community on it's own level of "self hatred" (see: Nas' "Hip Hop is Dead, Mos Def's "Tru3 Magic", and for my own personal throw-in Dead Prez's "Turn Off The Radio")

As many in the conservative sector speak of this perceived hypocrisy about Imus' comments vs. Black Music (read: Hip-Hop) I find it amazing that no one speaks of the fact that the people who buy the majority of rap music and fuel the industry are surburban white kids. I find it even more amazing that since these artists and boutique record label CEO's don't own the methods of production and distribution that anyone would think that the black community has any sort of control over what music is released and what propaganda is displayed.

The black vox populi time and again has stated that we want more intelligent music as opposed to b****es, blunts, and 40's however the owners of the record labels hold the keys and the checkbooks. Thus, they take the "artists" who offer the most salacious elements of what some would consider "black life" and make it a multimillion dollar investment. To bring it back to the middle, to suggest that Imus' comments plus black reaction equals hypocrisy is to buy into the MTV/BET/ClearChannel/RadioOne/Cox Communications lie that black life in and of itself is monolithic. Which is obviously wrong and if taken to the extreme could be considered racist.

THE JESSE JACKSON and AL SHARPTON Connection

Truth be told, Jesse makes Al look bad. That is not the point.

Black America has not chosen Jackson and Sharpton as the President and V.P. of Black America. Truth be told, I (and I'm sure MANY others will agree with me) would rather have Michael Eric Dyson, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, Dick Gregory, Barack Obama, or even Judge Joe Brown speak on behalf of Black America. As stated before, the old conservative guard, neocons, moderate liberals, and liberal extremists (along with a few other groups) lend credence to the "race-baiting" that many think Sharpton and Jackson do. Jackson maybe, Sharpton....not so much.

MANY within Black America don't really care what Jackson or Sharpton say at times. We do care about the National Association of Black Journalists (the people who began the Imus firestorm, and rightfully so.), The National Urban League, and a plethora of other community oriented organizations.

I hope that cleared up some things for you Bock without repeating too much of the same sentiments as my lovely sisters of ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA and a few divas of DELTA SIGMA THETA.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

The difference is that in rap/hiphop/etc. the artists are talking about an anonymous 'YOU' whereas in this specific instance, the remarks were directed toward a specific group of named individuals. It is a legitimate moral distinction and supports the rationale taken. While I am not defending misogynist music (I don't listen to, buy or support in any way), there is a difference. I will elaborate more later but I needed to get this said as soon as possible in this thread....

Well that is true, in that he cruelly targeted people who weren't really in the public arena (which what I think the most serious offense was). However, if we're talking about differences, there are a lot of things in rap music that go far beyond the simplicity of Imus's statements. Sometimes they are much more foul and brutal, and on a much larger scale.

I think the difference is that while Imus's comments did immediate damage to a small number of people (you can claim different, but I view the victims as those girls), while rap has done slower but more widespread damage to our society. My take, anyway.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by PhrozenGenius

Ok, time for another voice *sigh* where do I begin?

There have been numerous efforts to stymie the use of derogatory language within rap music. (Simply one element of hip-hop culture) From the late C. Dolores Tucker, to Tipper Gore, to Luther Campbell being locked up for lewdness, to more recent events such as Spelman College students protesting a Nelly appearance on their campus, Essence's "Take Back The Music" Campaign, and more subtle attacks from within the hip-hop community on it's own level of "self hatred" (see: Nas' "Hip Hop is Dead, Mos Def's "Tru3 Magic", and for my own personal throw-in Dead Prez's "Turn Off The Radio")

As many in the conservative sector speak of this perceived hypocrisy about Imus' comments vs. Black Music (read: Hip-Hop) I find it amazing that no one speaks of the fact that the people who buy the majority of rap music and fuel the industry are surburban white kids. I find it even more amazing that since these artists and boutique record label CEO's don't own the methods of production and distribution that anyone would think that the black community has any sort of control over what music is released and what propaganda is displayed.

The black vox populi time and again has stated that we want more intelligent music as opposed to b****es, blunts, and 40's however the owners of the record labels hold the keys and the checkbooks. Thus, they take the "artists" who offer the most salacious elements of what some would consider "black life" and make it a multimillion dollar investment. To bring it back to the middle, to suggest that Imus' comments plus black reaction equals hypocrisy is to buy into the MTV/BET/ClearChannel/RadioOne/Cox Communications lie that black life in and of itself is monolithic. Which is obviously wrong and if taken to the extreme could be considered racist.

THE JESSE JACKSON and AL SHARPTON Connection

Truth be told, Jesse makes Al look bad. That is not the point.

Black America has not chosen Jackson and Sharpton as the President and V.P. of Black America. Truth be told, I (and I'm sure MANY others will agree with me) would rather have Michael Eric Dyson, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, Dick Gregory, Barack Obama, or even Judge Joe Brown speak on behalf of Black America. As stated before, the old conservative guard, neocons, moderate liberals, and liberal extremists (along with a few other groups) lend credence to the "race-baiting" that many think Sharpton and Jackson do. Jackson maybe, Sharpton....not so much.

MANY within Black America don't really care what Jackson or Sharpton say at times. We do care about the National Association of Black Journalists (the people who began the Imus firestorm, and rightfully so.), The National Urban League, and a plethora of other community oriented organizations.

I hope that cleared up some things for you Bock without repeating too much of the same sentiments as my lovely sisters of ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA and a few divas of DELTA SIGMA THETA.

Not getting into the merits of this, but that is something I've changed my mind about over the past couple of years. I always disliked Sharpton more than Jackson until recently, but Sharpton occasionally makes good points and seems more willing to face his opposition. Granted, I still think he race baits, and he also seems more apt to enter into a conflict quicker than does Jackson. I do find it interesting to listen to him though, especially on programs like Glenn Beck.

[Little32]

Good post Pham. One particularly important point, which you highlight, is that the black community is not monolithic. If people do not understand this point on the most basic level, it is will be difficult for them to understand that you can't just pick one person and say that he/she represents all Black Americans.

Originally Posted by PhrozenGenius

Black America has not chosen Jackson and Sharpton as the President and V.P. of Black America. Truth be told, I (and I'm sure MANY others will agree with me) would rather have Michael Eric Dyson, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, Dick Gregory, Barack Obama, or even Judge Joe Brown speak on behalf of Black America.

To this list, I would add Patricia Hill Collins (who has written a good deal about this very topic), Beverly Guy Sheftall, bell hooks, Angela Davis, excetera, excetera.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

No, it can still be a double standard. The steps people chose to take regarding Imus involved protests, threatening boycotts, etc... I don't see decisive action like that on rap music. Sermons and scholarly writings are no doubt important, but I don't see that they represent a similar intensity. I'm not doubting your personal intensity about the issue, but I still don't see the "outrage", if you will, when it comes to rap and other issues.

I think its understandable that people not go protest rap music, there are bigger concerns to address. I think the same applies to Imus, yet it nevertheless consumed some people's lives (and the country) for at least a few days. Again, I don't think the possibility that an effective protest against rap would be unrealistic is the reason for a difference in actions.

All I can say about the intensity issue is that I see outrage among Black women everywhere. I don't see dedicating the amount of time, research, energy, and emotion it takes to write books, create art, teach young people, put on magazine campaigns, hold forums, block artists from performing at venues, etc. as less intense than taking a matter of minutes writing a letter to a radio station. It hurts me to hear someone say that all of that work- in which the political is surely personal- is less intense than some short-term hooplah, but I digress.

You're saying you see no decisive action on rap, but what decisive action? What protest could they possibly hold that would produce a similar result to Imus getting fired?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by laylo

All I can say about the intensity issue is that I see outrage among Black women everywhere. I don't see dedicating the amount of time, research, energy, and emotion it takes to write books, create art, teach young people, put on magazine campaigns, hold forums, block artists from performing at venues, etc. as less intense than taking a matter of minutes writing a letter to a radio station. It hurts me to hear someone say that all of that work- in which the political is surely personal- is less intense than some short-term hooplah, but I digress.

You're saying you see no decisive action on rap, but what decisive action? What protest could they possibly hold that would produce a similar result to Imus getting fired?

And note again, I don't want anything to happen. We're merely discussing whether there is a double standard.

I just don't see the anger, I don't see the outrage. I don't see people protesting outside of record studios or demanding a large scale boycott of rap. I'm sure many are concerned with the state of rap music and are taking action. However, I just don't see the "results or else!" attitude that you see with other situations.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

And note again, I don't want anything to happen. We're merely discussing whether there is a double standard.

I just don't see the anger, I don't see the outrage. I don't see people protesting outside of record studios or demanding a large scale boycott of rap. I'm sure many are concerned with the state of rap music and are taking action. However, I just don't see the "results or else!" attitude that you see with other situations.

The late Malcolm X used to tell white folks who wanted to join him to work in their own communities and organizations to change the mindset of their community. THAT is the best way that they could help further his human rights causes.

So to you, Shinerbock and your ilk, express your anger and outrage to YOUR community, ie the white folks who OWN the record companies that produce and promote this and those in the WHITE community who buy and support this music. You do your work in your community and we will continue to do the work in ours.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

The late Malcolm X used to tell white folks who wanted to join him to work in their own communities and organizations to change the mindset of their community. THAT is the best way that they could help further his human rights causes.

So to you, Shinerbock and your ilk, express your anger and outrage to YOUR community, ie the white folks who OWN the record companies that produce and promote this and those in the WHITE community who buy and support this music. You do your work in your community and we will continue to do the work in ours.

Its obvious you haven't read many of my posts in this thread. Thanks for trying, though.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I don't see people protesting outside of record studios or demanding a large scale boycott of rap. I'm sure many are concerned with the state of rap music and are taking action. However, I just don't see the "results or else!" attitude that you see with other situations.

We've already established that these ideas are not realistic. So the fact that people aren't taking actions that would obviously be fruitless does not indicate a double standard.

[jon1856]

I pulled the following points/counter-points (sorry CBS/60-Minutes)
out of the later part of the thread because I thought that they were rather interesting.

IMHO, from what I have seen and read in the past few weeks and from the little amount of Videos and audio I "reviewed" over the past few years, believe that there is a major double standard going on year.

From what I have seen and heard not only here but in general life, most people I know truly believe that certain actions, words, movements et al are wrong. Period.

To me, if does not matter who is doing it or saying it.

One could argue that it does not matter if it goes on only between two people or certain small compact group. But this stuff is now main-stream. It is on the major cable shows, it is on major song labels, it is in the public eyes and ears.

And yes, I am well aware that ever so often there are "actions" done to protest it.

But they seem to be once a year rather than in "their face" on a continual fashion.

And it just grows and grows and gowns larger and impacts more and more people. And becomes more and more accepted rather then rejected.
It becomes common place rather then a rarity. People grow up with it, see it and copy it in their actions and words.

I understand the well known marketing statement that "Sex sells".

But just how much sex, violent, improper actions, thoughts et al do we really need to be put into our faces and those of children?

It makes money for all involved.
So, I have to wonder if that is the reason some people may think that it can not be controlled? But is that not what played a part in getting Imus canned?

And one could include in the discussion the ultra-violent, sexist et al video games as well.

I now stand down off of my soap box and jump into my fire-proof suit.

Originally Posted by laylo

While protesting involves anger, I don't think writing, discussing, and teaching involve less. Every time I've participated in these kinds of activities concerning hip hop, it was more intense for me than any issue I've actually protested. And regardless, it can only be called a double standard if those who protested Imus were doing nothing on the hip hop front. But the fact is there isn't anything more they can do because there is no step they can take that would prevent offensive rap from being produced and played.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

No, it can still be a double standard. The steps people chose to take regarding Imus involved protests, threatening boycotts, etc... I don't see decisive action like that on rap music. Sermons and scholarly writings are no doubt important, but I don't see that they represent a similar intensity. I'm not doubting your personal intensity about the issue, but I still don't see the "outrage", if you will, when it comes to rap and other issues.

I think its understandable that people not go protest rap music, there are bigger concerns to address. I think the same applies to Imus, yet it nevertheless consumed some people's lives (and the country) for at least a few days. Again, I don't think the possibility that an effective protest against rap would be unrealistic is the reason for a difference in actions.

Originally Posted by mccoyred

The difference is that in rap/hiphop/etc. the artists are talking about an anonymous 'YOU' whereas in this specific instance, the remarks were directed toward a specific group of named individuals. It is a legitimate moral distinction and supports the rationale taken. While I am not defending misogynist music (I don't listen to, buy or support in any way), there is a difference. I will elaborate more later but I needed to get this said as soon as possible in this thread....

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well that is true, in that he cruelly targeted people who weren't really in the public arena (which what I think the most serious offense was). However, if we're talking about differences, there are a lot of things in rap music that go far beyond the simplicity of Imus's statements. Sometimes they are much more foul and brutal, and on a much larger scale.

I think the difference is that while Imus's comments did immediate damage to a small number of people (you can claim different, but I view the victims as those girls), while rap has done slower but more widespread damage to our society. My take, anyway.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Not getting into the merits of this, but that is something I've changed my mind about over the past couple of years. I always disliked Sharpton more than Jackson until recently, but Sharpton occasionally makes good points and seems more willing to face his opposition. Granted, I still think he race baits, and he also seems more apt to enter into a conflict quicker than does Jackson. I do find it interesting to listen to him though, especially on programs like Glenn Beck.

Originally Posted by laylo

All I can say about the intensity issue is that I see outrage among Black women everywhere. I don't see dedicating the amount of time, research, energy, and emotion it takes to write books, create art, teach young people, put on magazine campaigns, hold forums, block artists from performing at venues, etc. as less intense than taking a matter of minutes writing a letter to a radio station. It hurts me to hear someone say that all of that work- in which the political is surely personal- is less intense than some short-term hooplah, but I digress.

You're saying you see no decisive action on rap, but what decisive action? What protest could they possibly hold that would produce a similar result to Imus getting fired?

Originally Posted by shinerbock

And note again, I don't want anything to happen. We're merely discussing whether there is a double standard.

I just don't see the anger, I don't see the outrage. I don't see people protesting outside of record studios or demanding a large scale boycott of rap. I'm sure many are concerned with the state of rap music and are taking action. However, I just don't see the "results or else!" attitude that you see with other situations.

Originally Posted by mccoyred

The late Malcolm X used to tell white folks who wanted to join him to work in their own communities and organizations to change the mindset of their community. THAT is the best way that they could help further his human rights causes.

So to you, Shinerbock and your ilk, express your anger and outrage to YOUR community, ie the white folks who OWN the record companies that produce and promote this and those in the WHITE community who buy and support this music. You do your work in your community and we will continue to do the work in ours.

Originally Posted by laylo

We've already established that these ideas are not realistic. So the fact that people aren't taking actions that would obviously be fruitless does not indicate a double standard.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by laylo

We've already established that these ideas are not realistic. So the fact that people aren't taking actions that would obviously be fruitless does not indicate a double standard.

Yeah, the reason they're not realistic is because it wouldn't work. Why? Because 1) People wouldn't do it on a large scale and 2) people wouldn't follow through with a large scale boycott.

Thus, because not enough people within the community would be willing to act upon it, it likely wouldn't work. That doesn't eliminate it from the double standard category, that displays a double standard within the society as a whole. If you can get a significant base to act in a dedicated way regarding one problem, but they won't do the same in another, what is that?

I think the impossibility excuse is just that. Until the record companies and advertisers hear from black culture as a whole, not just a sliver of the community, of course they'll be able to ignore it. Don't you have to start somewhere (once again, this is all hypothetical, I really don't care)? Also, if anyone knows about how to succeed in uphill battles, its the black community. Sorry, I'm just not buying the "well, maybe we'd do it if it would work" argument.