jjhunsecker said:

co sign. they may be pawns in the game, HOWEVER, this is not slave days no more and we dont HAVE to sell our own people out just to get a head. as far as i'm concerned they MAKE the CHOICE on their own to perpetuate that image

Moonwalkbjrain said:

Its not the fault of the artist for having whatever image they have. It is the fault of the so-called CEOs when they heard in a bunch of fools perpetuating negative stereotypes, but guess what? If it wasn't paying, they wouldn't do it. The people signing the checks don't have to sign that TYPE of artist. Why does everybody want to absolve the big decision-makers of the brunt of the responsibility? Blame everybody but the rich white man, huh?

Moonwalkbjrain said:

I can co-sign to this too. I've had this happen more than a few times as a kid and an adult and it has really bugged me but they've have fallen into this trap that acting "ignant" is hot and it's not. So many black folks have talked about "keeping it real" but when one does and it doesn't fit into a category, then they'll wanna ostricize you. We'll never get any type of respect from others if we don't love and respect ourselves first.

laurarichardson said:

Why don't you post those exact quotes here so there's actually something for me to read before suggesting me to do so? What are those comments that makes it "quite clear" that he is intentionally trying to degrade the self-image of a whole minority group, because of his personal racist views?




I'm sorry, but what does being the child of Hispanic and African parents have anything to with in regards with this thread?




Well, even when I was a whole lot younger and observing the development of the so called "black music" in the 90s from abroad, it was quite easy to see what would become of it a decade or so later. It made me frustrated back then and even if I don't listen to that much American mainstream music these days anymore, it still does. Altough seeing so much of it sort of does make you feel quite neutral to it after a while. It's there, I can easily distinct between the classic "black music" that I like and the material that is called such these days.

I don't even like to personally speak so much in terms that emphasize the ethical responsibility of a full community. We all have very limited means to participate in upholding such an image as a whole, and drawing direct equation marks between what is known as "hip-hop" and possessing a dark skin colour is quite dubious if you are using it for any sort of valid analytical criticism - at least from a foreigner's perspective. If you were to call the above-discussed phenomenons "racist" and also in the same gasp of breath implying that I am myself "knowingly or unknowingly enabling and defending racism" you are automatically placing too much value on a communal viewpoint that is completely segregated from any modern valid theory of ethics that take into account an individual's subjectivity, or any possible viewpoint of mine that you obviously cannot hold that much information on, as we don't personally know each other that well.

Furthermore, whenever we speak of an "ism" we are referring to either an ideology or prevailing social practises that stem historically from the widespread consequences of such an ideology. The latter is basically what the original article attempts to accommodate the views on the manufactured hip-hop acts on, and may I say doesn't succeed in doing so. Just because something is expressed in a critical manner for a common good cause doesn't mean automatically that the rationale behind it would be truthful.

And when you personally wrote here that I would be indeed "knowingly or unknowingly enabling and defending racism" you are labelling me as an individual whose behaviour would fall under either of the descriptions of an "ism". So basically you just called me a racist, knowingly or unknowingly. Should I now be grateful to you for pointing that out?
[Edited 1/5/06 2:41am]

namepeace said:

That doesn't make any sense at all. You were originally commenting a post of mine that described my disdain towards the views on the article.

BlaqueKnight said:

I'm not absolving the "rich White man" of anything. They are interested in making money, and if there was a profit to be made off of Hungarian tap dancing bagpipers, they would be all over the radio and top of the charts. One thing to remember is that most of these companies (such as Def Jam and Roc-a -fella) were pushing this music , and most importantly, this image BEFORE they were affiliated with major labels . Nobody held a gun to their head to sell such an image. The so-called "rich white man" you mentioned smelled a buck, and swooped in to make some off of it. I don't think those at the very top give a shit WHAT they are selling as long as it DOES SELL . But P Diddy and Simmons and Gotti should know better ...

Novabreaker said:

Makes perfect sense if you read my responses accurately, which you have so far failed to do. How hard is it, Novabreaker?

The author says that the industry's proliferation of racial stereotypes via a "thug life" gangsta rap motif is racially motivated.

You disagree for legit reasons.

I say the industry does so because it makes serious money from gangsta rap. But, regardless of who is at fault for promoting the stereotypes, the promotion of the stereotypes still exists.

And you have yet to address that, responding to my posts as if a) I am the author of the article, or b) I agree with that point the author made in his article.

So since you are confused, I'll ask you a different way. Would you not agree that gangsta rap promotes and reinforces some of the worst stereotypes about black people, REGARDLESS of who is to blame for it?

.
[Edited 1/5/06 9:34am]

BlaqueKnight said:

-----
Of course nobody puts the blame where it belongs. Old school rap is free of a lot of the thug and sambo routine and people liked just fine.

This nosense did not start until the big record companies started buying up the small rap record labels and taking an interest in rap.

jjhunsecker said:

-----
"But I would hope the Blacks involved would not so willingly "Sell Out". "

Why would you think that? .These guys are human and if they don't do what the corporate bosses say they will not have a label. None of these guys owns a record company they just run labels that are subsidaries of large multi-national corporatations.

BlaqueKnight said:

it has nothing to do with no blaming the rich white man. i'm NOT gonna blame just him tho. i'ma blame the rich black man as well. because we should be lifting each other up and progressing instead of tearing ourselves down with that macho, bang bang, homophobi, sexist, bullshit!

purplecam said:

co sign. i think this is a huge problem with music today - everyones concerned with "keepin it real" and i doubt most of them even knows what that really means. it doesnt mean pretending to be somethin you're not, it doesnt mean acting like ur ass never went to school and therefore dont know how to pronounce a word right, it doesnt mean turning urself into a walkin stereotype. i wish folks would realize this

laurarichardson said:

so what ur basically saying is (or it seems ur saying) the influential blacks in all of this should do this cuz whitey said and that they have no choice. thats some straight bullshit. they have a choice, their just too coward to say fuck the mainstream and try something new. they've found a formula and it works and as long as they gettin paid then all is good and dandy. honestly, i dont expect the head white man in charge to change things, i really dont - he's disconnected from the whole issue- but these blacks with the labels (the inc., roca fella, def jam etc..) are in an amazing position to change things, to try something new, but instead they just keep on backsliding into wat they know will put some cash in their pockets.

Moonwalkbjrain said:

I know what you're saying and I agree with you but what you need to understand is that the reason Iovine & Fluffy are in their perspective positions is because they are a certain "kind" of negroe. The kind who cares more about making money than anything else. THEY WOULDN'T BE RUNNING THINGS IF THEY WERE ARTIST TYPES. They CHOOSE to market this kind of music because 1. Its easy to make and there's an endless supply of it. 2. The ad $$$ have already been spent putting putting it into place.
Rap made money because when the industry went bankrupt forcing CDs on the market (fully) in '91, the only music that made money was rap and grunge. Grunge was a fad and they thought rap was, too. At the time the execs were unaware of how big of an underground culture rap had, so they underestimated the money earning potential. They then tried to play catch up by dumping tons of money in anything that was sensationalized and had a black man holding a mic and rhyming on it. Sensationalization does and always will sell. Its what sold Prince in the 80s. The difference is that the cats at the forefront of the rap industry are fools. They have no desire to do anything other than line their pockets.
Honestly, I fully understand why they are where they are. If I were one of the big boys, I wouldn't hire anyone who's going to undermine what I've built either. (I am NOT co-signing their actions but simply stating that I understand their thought process; I would never try to profit off negative stereotypes) They have made many bucks on negative black images and stereotypes. They're not going to bring in Prince or somebody who's going to buck the establishment to run things. They are going to find the greediest most selfish people they can and offer them exactly what they want; more money. As far as I'm concerned, they are all guilty of pushing negativity but the ones at the top are the Charlie Mansons, not Puff and Jimmy and Damon. They were just selected. Any number of the neo-soul labels could have been selected and a whole black positive music movement could be started with the return of real musicianship and singing...but as long as artists have to compete for the same spots as rappers, that's probably not going to happen.
[Edited 1/5/06 14:27pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

i'll co sign u on all of that. i do agree w/ what ur saying, i understand 100%, but it irks me tremendously when i see folks like diddy with his makin the band bs talkin bout he want the next female supergroup yet he's basing who he picks on looks and how well they can shake their ass more than talent. or when i see all these rappers poppin up everyday talkin bout the same bullshit. but its like u said they're all about the money, which i can understand for some, but the ones thats in them high positions that already have a boatload of money i cannot exscuse at all.

u know one thing thats got me thinkin recently? i was reading about amos and andy and how the naacp protested to get them off the air cuz it was racist against blacks. why dont they protest all these labels and artists that are promoting this negative image? glaad got on em's ass HARD when he first came out, naacp should do the same. there should seriously be some affirmative action in the music biz right now

Change the title of this thread to "BK Preaches," please.

Thanks.

vainandy said:

Agreed. The sad thing is that some of these guys aren't as hard as they appear to be. They're what the late Eazy-E use to call "Video Gangstas" or what a friend of mine called CB4 Gangstas (Those of you who have seen the movie "CB4" know what I'm talking about.) They haven't done any of the dirt they're rappin about. They're just talking about some of the things they've heard other people tell them.

namepeace said:

Well, you bumped out the "racism" factor from the equation all by yourself when I was still keeping it as the sole focus point - as that is what the original article refers to even at its title. But you had posted also a number of earlier posts to this thread before I hopped in, and my own approach was just to challenge the original author of his reckless accusation of a "deliberate" racist strategy. When I said "but that doesn't make it racist"(per se), I was of course referring to deliberate strategies to promote a racist stereotype in order to reinforce racism itself. By "deliberate" you seem to be mostly referring to the simple fact that they are just aware of it (which I could agree with, along with most everone alse on this thread), the original author implies something more.

That or I just don't get it. Not that it hardly would matter...



Well, yes. And especially as when these images are so widely sold outside US as well. For instance a lot of young African refugees who moved out to European countries now mimic the behaviour of the MTV icons due to the lack of proper European dark-skinned rolemodels. I've also noticed that the same thing even applies to some young Asian females who live here in Europe, as they are usually presented as just very sexist "love interests" for the hip-hoppers in the videos. Some of them now play out the fantasy also in real life.

wheres ace and sassybritches?