That’s funny, I’m not getting the same message from you as you with the face
All those genres of music were at one time vilfied, but its been damn near half a century and has no relevance to the current discussion other than to explain the silence of the mainstream community for their abhorence of this music as I pointed out earlier. Hip hop or whatever you call it describing hos and bitches with abandon has clearly been established as objectionable in the black community as well. That’s different.
Amazing?
Well, considering the media didn’t make a big stink about it and we really haven’t heard much about previous objection to hip hop in the media as well, this point has little relevance
I think most of us never saw it.
If the point of your post is to spread the blame for this “amazing” music, then I would agree with you(except for the “amazing”).
Actually, it’s quite relevant. When a genre is clearly identifiable as Black, it’s vilified. If it goes away and comes back… dare I say, whitewashed, then it’s a wonderful part of cultural history. Black music, IMO, has always been forceful and critical. When the force and critique is absent, then people are happy to frolic to the beat.
Well, actually, I was referring to how rock 'n roll is this amazing hybrid of Black rock music, skiffle from the Brits in the 60s… but I think you think that me stating that hip hop is amazing, well I think it is. So do a lot of people in this country and around the world.
Wha…? In response to the first issue, that’s my point. It wasn’t terribly bothersome when White guys wearing eyeliner had half-naked women crawling around on their videos. Second point - please recall controversies about N.W.A. and their album Efil4zaggin, the legal mess that Luke and the 2 Live Crew got into in Florida, or Ice-T and “Cop Killer.” (In fairness it was Body Count and it was thrash metal, but hey! It’s a Black guy talking through a song.)
Well, I’ll let the collective masses respond, but if you watched MTV from 1985-1990 religiously like I did, that’s all you saw. Ozzy. Billy Idol. Winger. Whitesnake. Great White. Poison. I could go on, but I won’t.
Well, in part. Go up to the White men who are the corporate directors of Universal, Interscope, and so forth, and ask them why they are objectifying Black women through their promotion of and encouragement of artists who engage in such behavior. They are equally, if not majoritively responsible for it.
I have to admit I don’t follow Imus and when this story broke I thought it might be a one-time gaffe. Then I read This editorial by the W. Post’s Colbert King.
Holy flurking schnitt! Why the fuck wasn’t this guy fired years ago!? How the hell can anyone defend him? And what does Sharpton or Jackson have to do with anything?
The only thing I can say about his firing is better late than never. All the ranches in the world don’t make up for this garbage.
Sorry if this post contains material already covered. I haven’t read the whole thread, just felt like sharing.
You know, I totally agree with you.In fact, one of these days I plan to start a thread providing my perceptions on the difference between the American psyche about important westwern issues and my backwoods Canadian upper middle aged year old counterpart(other Canadians may disagree). The theme will be that the origin of liberal issues arise in the Unitred states but never quite gets resolved while here in Canada we adopt the dialogue and quickly put the issue to rest. In favour of the liberals mind you, but I strongly suspect that is the case in other western countries.
For example, we don’t have shock jocks and when we have hate speech, it only attracts public attention when the offence is serious, and we deal with that promptly, through our laws, and then put it behind us. Like our elections, we get resolution quickly.
I do pay attention to the American media, Cnn, CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS in addition to CBC, Global and CTV. I don’t get Fox, Limbaugh , Imus or HBO for that matter but I also see a complete other American world here at the SDMB. I suspect the media tones down the animosity and polarization that is quite evident from real Americans on this board. I honestly feel fortunate to listen in on you guys here. As far as hip hop goes, I haven’t heard much about it here yet.
No, that’s not what I meant. Rather, you should stop assuming you know better than those of us who actually live here. Up until recently, I believe you admitted you didn’t even know all that much about Imus. Nor did you know the meaning of “ho” or “nappy-headed”. And yet, you lecture us on whether or not we should find it offensive.
Well thankyou for the clarification. I honestly don’t believe that I know better than anyone else. I do have opinions that I like to share for debate. I didn’t think that was a bad thing.
Can we exclude jazz from that statement? I agree that many people prefer the whitewashed version, but the Black jazz geniuses are honored, and respected, and their music played with all it’s force and power.
If I went to church, it would be this one. As a matter of fact, I think I’ll cue up* A Love Supreme* right now.
Maybe that wasn’t clear, but the implication was that we as consumers shouldn’t be mad that the people we buy our talcum powder from sponsor even speech we don’t like: i.e. consumers have the power. I’m sorry you read it differently.
The only trick you guys seem to have up your sleeves is trying to attack straw men. If you want talcum powder, but the talcum powder. If the talcum powder company happens to sponsor a program you don’t like, trying to sell talcum powder to people you don’t like, what I’m saying is that a commitment to free speech means not getting your panties all in a bunch about it.
Sponsors are only going to sponsor what their are listeners for that make up a market for them. Boycotts, in addition, do have the power to affect them, and I’m saying that they are a bad thing.
Because the impulse to punish speech you don’t like and try to remove it from civil society is a bad one. It’s illiberal. It’s not consistent with a commitment to a free market of ideas.
Again, this is a fantasy you guys seem to have cooked up. It makes no sense. I’m not saying that people don’t have a free market right to lobby companies. I’m saying that they should refrain from doing so if their goal is to punish people for speech they don’t like, censor venues, and restrict what OTHER people choose to listen to.
Not if you value free speech as a real ideal, as opposed to an empty commitment that just happens to be law.
Shrug. My metaphors are accurate, and yours are not: saying otherwise isn’t the same thing as being right about it. Free speech means that we have tolerate the existence of things we don’t necessarily like, and refrain from seeking out to shut them down.
Wait, so Sharpton and Jackson are actually agents (unwitting, I assume) of the Evil White American Power Structure, used as expedients in the media in order to support bigotry and keep it alive and well? Is that the theory?
That particular set of "1"s has a few unlikely dots connecting them, I think, although I can see why it’s good fodder for our conspiracy theorists.
A simpler explanation is that the media give Sharpton and Jackson airtime because they are highly recognizable figures, they both make careers out of inserting themselves into racial controversies, they attract viewers (both admiring and contemptuous), and they’re ready any day, any time for a photo op, interview, or press conference. I think the big media are fundamentally lazy, and when it comes time to present the “black perspective,” they’re going to go with the famous scion of the black community who’s knocking on their door, rather than go out and scour the country for the best and brightest unknowns.
I don’t know about ethical just like I don’t know about consistency. All things equal, I don’t see why they couldn’t be ethical and consistent, and certainly they are perfectly legal. What I’ve argued is if you value free speech, however, then its wrong.
Good grief. Are you really trying this hard to not see a distinction between trying to get messages heard and trying to prevent messages from being heard?
Your attempt here to try and argue that I’m somehow in favor of restricting free speech is ridiculous. It’s like the tolerance of intolerance argument. Yes, I support the idea that someone CAN try to lobby and boycott away something other people want to listen to. What I’m arguing is that it is BAD to do so if you value free speech and the free exchange of ideas. The same way that I support the free speech of someone to argue that we should put homosexuals to death, but can still argue that anyone committed to liberty shouldn’t argue that they should be.
Sure, but what does that have to do with what I’ve been arguing?
I’m against actions taken to try and lobby away speech and prevent OTHER PEOPLE from listening to something you don’t like via economic threats. Telling people that something is bad and evil and so forth is 100% cool. Telling them that they should cover their ears though, perhaps is not. And acting to try to take away even the opportunity to listen to something they want to listen to (perhaps because you’ve failed to convince them) is not. Not if you think they are adults.
But this still is ludicrous! I wouldn’t buy talcum powder from the Taliban or from the KKK or from the Fred Phelps Family. I wouldn’t buy talcum powder from anyone who advocates killing gays, white women, or prairie dogs. Why would I give money to people who support things I think are immoral and evil? Or say immoral and evil things?
I wouldn’t buy talcum powder from someone who says monstro is a nappy-headed whore. You’re saying I’m wrong for being so discriminating?
I’m just one person, dude.
Would you support a talcum powder company who sponsors only white-separatist, KKK and neo-Nazi organizations? If you received a pamphlet for a KKK rally which announced that it was sponsored by the Anglo-Saxon Powder Company, would you make the personal decision to buy up a heap of their products?
If you did, wouldn’t it be understandable if someone decided your purchases indicated something about your sympathy towards the white-seperatist cause?
A person who organizes an ethical boycott does not physically bar anyone from buying anything. It’s not like they snatch items out of people’s hands at the check-out counter, or blocks access to the grocery store aisle. They raise awareness about a product or the makers of that product and then let the consumer decide what to do. That’s all a friggin’ boycott is.
You want to allow corporations to cram advertising down our throats, but you think it’s wrong for organizations concerned with the ethics of these corporations to do the same exact thing. You favor one form of control but not the other. Don’t you see how contradictory this is?
Let me ask you: Do you feel this way about all boycotts? Because if you do, I have to question whether you’re really an American. The country was built on the concept of boycott. If you feel like boycotts are immoral, why are you living in a country that gained independence through, in part, the power of the boycott? Go back to Britain and drink your over-taxed tea, whydon’tyou.
Wah wah wah. For the eleventy-billionth time, free speech does mean “free from consequence”.
Let me ask another honest question: If Tom Brokaw had called the basketball players “nappy-headed jigaboo hos”, do you think he should have lost his job? What if he couldn’t get through a newsreport without stammering and stuttering? What if the guy had Tourette’s and screamed “NIGGER BROWN” every time a black person was featured in a story?
Would NBC have been morally bound to keep the man because “free speech, man”? Or could Tom Brokaw reasonably expect to be fired? Just like anyone of us would, if our employers decided we were embarrassing them?
Let’s look at the Montegomery bus boycott. Are you saying the boycotters were bad guys? Did they try to punish people? No. Punishing would be setting fire to the buses and harrassing the drivers. Did they take anything way from the other riders? No. The other riders were perfectly free to continue supporting the bus system. New riders were perfectly free to contribute their support to the bus system. The bus system was perfectly free to continue its practices. And the boycotters were perfectly free to wear their shoes thin walking miles and miles.
The bus company was not entitled to their money in the first place. The boycotters didn’t hurt them. The bus company hurt itself.
Just like Imus is not entitled to money from CBS, MSNBC, Proctor and Gamble, or GM. His sponsors didn’t hurt him. He hurt himself.
Advocating against the boycott goes against the very concept of a free market.