You can become a hip-hop artist who advocates the assassination of President Bush.
Sage Francis never flinches when discussing the instigative ingredients he sometimes uses to season his edgy raps.
Well, almost never.
Questioned about a potentially controverisal [sic] line in the penultimate track of his new album, "Human the Death Dance," he audibly wavers during a phone interview from his Rhode Island home.
The source of his discomfort comes about three-fifths of the way through "Hoofprints in the Sand": "There's been too much murder and not enough martyr/Why is it no one else wants to impress Jodie Foster?" he asks, after cataloging, with increasing disgust, the many social and political ills facing this country — anti-intellectualism, drug abuse, disregard for the environment, racial turmoil and intrusive government.
Of course, to impress Jodie Foster is the reason cited by John W. Hinckley Jr. in a letter to the actress explaining his assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981.
Potentially controversial? If I were to advocate the killing of "Sage" Francis, or the reporter who wrote this piece, Len Righi, would that be just "potentially" controversial?
What if I were to advocate the killing of the executive editor of the Seattle Times, where I found this article. Would that be just "potentially" controversial?
I certainly hope not.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at June 21, 2007 05:16 PM | Email ThisYou're always controversial. You just have the balls to admit it. You wear the brand proudly and have the tag "Inspected by #12" to guarantee your controversial quality.
Too bad certain faux rap acts can't walk your walk.
According to Billboard, rap and hip-hop album sales are down by more than 40 percent compared with the year 2000. It's hard to know why the genre is suffering a bigger blow than rock or pop.
Some industry experts say young people are fed up with the violence, degrading imagery and lyrics. Others say the music is just as popular as it ever was, but that fans have found other means to consume the music.
Sage may want to dust off his worthless journalism degree.
Posted by: Organization Man on June 21, 2007 09:03 PMWhile I'm not opposed to efforts to get rappers to be more responsible, I'm not for censorship either. Tipper Gore's PMRC only served to make the targeted music more popular. It was a sad moment in our country when a music album (2 Live Crew) was banned for being to provocative. If you don't want your children listening to certain music, it's up to the parents, not the government, to do something about it.
Posted by: Palouse on June 22, 2007 07:46 AMApple has the option of giving the computers to low-income communities without legitimizing 50 cent. The question posed is it better to have the computers if the only way to get them is via using 50 cent as the conduit. Let me pose another question. Suppose communties said to Apple, we want the computers, but not the spokesperson. This is the same question that has been posed in communties where brothels are legal. Should they take donations from brothels for charity activities? Heck, let me ask you the question, should Rick's Strip Club be allowed to sponsor a little league team in your neighborhood? What you are talking about is how is a benefit defined. Computers in a low-income community are a good thing. Packaging is important though, you remember the Trojan horse story. Computers are good, but if the packaging unleashes destructive forces, maybe pressuring Jobs to get a partner more Cosby like is not so bad.
Posted by: WVH on June 22, 2007 08:53 AMWhether I agree with how a legitimate business or person makes their money doesn't matter to me when we're talking about philanthropy. This of course doesn't apply to ill-gotten money through drugs, crime, etc. Perhaps that is your angle, that 50 Cent has made his money by polluting our youth and therefore his philanthropy is not worthy. I have no counterargument to that because that is your feeling, however it is not mine. He hasn't broken any laws and is living an American dream, making millions from nothing. Whether I like his work is irrelevant to whether his charity is good charity.
Posted by: Palouse on June 22, 2007 10:25 AMI think we can draw a distinction here between what is positive for kids of color and what might be OK for kids with strong families. First, Apple should give the computers. Next, how about the face of the campaign being someone like Maya Angelou, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, Ken Chenault, the CEO of American Express, Michael Steele former senate candidate from Maryland or Denzel Washington or any of the crop of academics and college presidents. What young Black males need is strong positive role models who have made it in the wider community. 50 cent is attempting, in my opinion, to mainstream his image as have Russell Simmons. No, his charity should not be discounted, just as the charity of Mafia dons and drug cartel members is positive. It is just the basis of their fortunes is poison.
Posted by: WVH on June 22, 2007 09:26 PMI don't know the status or desire of Cosby and the other people you mentioned in terms of wanting to expand access of computers to inner city kids. Maybe they do, dunno. But the point is that 50 Cent stepped up and Apple accepted. I'm sure many corporations do similar projects with celebrities that you approve of. That doesn't mean that a rapper should be denied access to providing goodwill just because you don't like his music.
A lot of musicians, 50 Cent included, are examples of people who became millionaires from nothing and who turned their lives around in the process. If not for his music, Curtis Jackson might have been selling drugs or dead. Instead, he's trying to do something positive for communities where he was raised. And you would rather he was denied that opportunity. Not me.
I'm not trying to debate hip hop culture here and its effect on communities. Protest the music all you like, don't buy it, whatever. But he's making a living, legally, and along the way he's doing some good things with his money and fame. That's okay with me. Good luck with those boycotts.
Posted by: Palouse on June 23, 2007 10:07 AMYou are correct that he made his money legally, my point is in terms of the role model, he is right there with the Mafia and drug cartel. I don't just point to Jobs. Hillary Clinton held a fundraisier at Timbaline's house and pulled in $800,000 from hip hop thugs. This discussion reminds me a bit of one of the Godfather movies where Al Pacino's character is attempting to go legit. The problem is once involved in those activities one always gets sucked back into the sewer. I have no idea if any of the individuals listed would be interested in the project, but they are better role models particularly for young Black males. Heck, Ken Griffey is in town.
The problem is, in my opinion, so much of the corporate world is willing to deal with hip hop thugs because, at this point, it does improve the bottom line. Interesting thing though, Black people have been the canaries pointing out destructive trends in society. When everyone thought it was just Black families dissolving and high rates of out of wedlock births, it wasn't a problem. Now, high rates of out of wedlock births are spread throughout the society. Whether one thinks this moral or immoral, the effect on children has been devastating. The poison that is hip hop is spreading throughout the culture. I hope hop sales continue to drop. I am in the market for a new computer, just not an Apple at this point.
I got the point a long time ago and I'm not a big consumer. You made my point that major corps have mainstreamed hip hop, just as major corps have mainstreamed soft porn. When suburban kids start emulating the worst elements of hip hop and some are, then others will get the point. They will get the point because hip hop culture is a fast route to a early death. In fact, there are some upper middle income bored suburban wannabes who think they are gang material. Remember all those poor huddled masses puffing away 20 feet from buildings and all those .08 drunk driving laws got started because some committed or perhaps you think we should be committed crazies thought that second hand smoke and drunk driving was just wrong. Ideas start small and eventually snowball. I do understand the libertarian and nanny state arguments put forth often on this site, but I think the second hand smoking laws and drunk driving laws are good. I look forward to the demise of hip hop and the demise of these cretins as role models.
Posted by: WVH on June 23, 2007 11:55 PM1. From John Mc Whorter in City Journal
Anyone who sees such behavior as a path to a better future--anyone, like Professor Dyson, who insists that hip-hop is an urgent "critique of a society that produces the need for the thug persona"--should step back and ask himself just where, exactly, the civil rights-era blacks might have gone wrong in lacking a hip-hop revolution. They created the world of equality, striving, and success I live and thrive in.
Hip-hop creates nothing.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_how_hip_hop.html
2. The Racial Politics of hip hop and the corporate connection
The Racial Politics of Radio
Unfortunately, as outside forces-mainly white owned corporations began to to catch wind of this phenomenon they began to apply exploitive marketing schemes that were designed to capture a huge market share. Translation: As major corporations saw lots of white kids getting down with Hip Hop, they decided to do whatever it took to appeal to what is considered a lucrative demographic. One place where this was clearly manifested was in the music biz. Those of us who have been in radio and the music business long enough may recall the friction that existed in the late 80s and early 90s when pop/Top 40 radio stations like Hot 97 in NY and KMEL in SF started playing Hip Hop.
http://www.daveyd.com/articleultimatebattlerace.html
3. Upper Middle Income Class Gangs
Abstract
Theoretical explanations of deviant gangs do not appear adequate to explain middle class delinquency. It is the contention of this paper that for some members of the upper middle class, socially sanctioned means of maintaining their social position are difficult to realize and that these young people organize subcultures which fit the definition of a delinquent gang. The theory is illustrated through and ex post facto application to a middle class gang.
An Upper Middle Class Deviant Gang
Andrew Greeley, James Casey
The American Catholic Sociological Review, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1963), pp. 33-41
doi:10.2307/3708498
This article consists of 9 page(s).
4. One expresion of the polluting nature of the
hip hop genre is the fight club movement:
Illegal, violent teen fight clubs face police crackdown
Updated 8/1/2006 10:48 AM ET
By Michael McCarthy, USA TODAY
According to Gill, Chase Leavitt laced up boxing gloves and punched it out with a 17-year-old opponent at the church, which is in an affluent neighborhood. Organizers handed out fliers advertising the fight. About 100 students from Leavitt's East High School paid admission before cops raided the premises. As the teens fled, they dropped a video camera with footage of several bouts that night.
"This is not something that just happens in poor neighborhoods," Gill says. "This crosses all socioeconomic bounds. It's happening in middle-class and upper-middle-class environments."
Secretary Leavitt and Chase Leavitt declined to comment, referring calls to attorney Loren Weiss. He says Chase Leavitt was "prosecuted for who he was, not what he did."
Fight clubs tap into a dark, nihilistic "part of the American psyche fascinated by the spectacle of blood and violence," says Orin Starn, cultural anthropology professor at Duke University who teaches about sports in American society. "This does seem a phenomenon of the Mortal Kombat, violent video game generation. The fight club offers the chance to bring those fantasies of violence and danger to life -- and maybe have your 15 minutes of fame in an underground video."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-31-violent-fight-clubs_x.htm
Yes, corporations owe a duty to the shareholders, but don't the leaders like Jobs owe some duty to society? Mainstreaming hip hop and soft porn may bring in dollars, euros, won or whatever, but it brings some other effects as well. Just as out of wedlock births which have the effect of devastating most kids cannot be contained in communities that are low-income, the effects of hip hop will pollute the wider society. I am not against capitalism, just make it more reponsible when it affects kids.