Drake and Lil Wayne: Not All Rappers are Misogynists

“Lil Wayne is the closest thing to an iconic figure in my generation,” explained Drake in his interview with Katie Couric in October 2010. He went on to compare the well-known rapper with legends, such as Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, and even Che Guevara. Lil Wayne can be seen as such an icon because of how he lives his life as well as his musical achievements. He is a very intelligent man with an incredible talent, but one thing Katie Couric pointed out is that at the time of this interview, the icon was spending time in prison. So how can it be that an icon of American music, a role model for teenagers and young adults, is spending time in prison and rapping crude sexual remarks, but is still someone kids can strive to be like? Well, his sentence was actually not for very long, and perhaps, his lyrics are not as disparaging as society may sometimes think.

Lil Wayne is a “gangsta” and his entire life is based around it. However, other rappers do not necessarily feel that way about their own lives. Drake said that he does not have a life like that and he can only rap about his Jewish mother and the girls he takes on dates. In order to enhance his music and lyrics, he likes to study women’s minds and conversations and he tries to convey the things he learns in his lyrics. When he was asked about the derogatory nature of hip-hop and rap music towards woman, Drake said that there is a fine line between demeaning a woman and being funny and witty. At the time of the interview, Drake and Lil Wayne hit the charts with the song “Every Girl” and a repeated line in this song is “I wish I could f*** every girl in the world.” Drake said that when writing and performing this song, they were trying to be funny and witty. He elaborates that there are elements of comedy in hip-hop and rap, and those are the lines that make for the best quotations. There are many women who go to Lil Wayne’s concerts and scream and sing those exact lines back at him. So it is really demeaning if women are enjoying it and shouting along to the lyrics, knowing full well what they mean? Drake went on to say that to demean a woman was completely different than what him and Lil Wayne do in their music.

I have to agree with Drake a little bit because I think there is a certain element of hip-hop and rap that is comedic. Many of my favorite lines of rap songs are a little bit inappropriate, but I like them because they are humorous and clever. However, during some rap songs, while listening to the lyrics, my jaw drops because of how explicit they are. There is definitely a fine line between debasing women and simply poking fun, but it is also hard to distinguish where that line is drawn. If a rapper’s excuse for every offensive thing said is that he is just joking, when will he notice if he has gone too far? And is it possible for him to go too far? Since Lil Wayne is such an iconic, musical figure of our time, does he have the power to rap about whatever he wants and make fun of whomever he pleases?

Here is the link to the interview in case anyone is interested: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6929711n

Hip-Hop Culture and American Culture

Last class, when we started to watch “Beyond Beats and Rhymes,” a documentary about the effect of hip-hop on black image and culture, I was very interested in the idea of gender roles that the documentary brought up. A lot of the reason why hip-hop has been such a controversial genre of music is because, according to critics, it promotes violence and gives negative images toward women and homosexuals. What I found most interesting was Spelman College’s refusal to have Nelly at a charity event because of the negative stereotypes given to women in his video “Tip Drill.”

Although I enjoy some songs in this genre, I agree with the assertions that it is hypermasculine and promotes negative stereotypes about certain groups of people. However, at the same time, I feel like the culture portrayed by hip-hop music is actually quite similar to mainstream American culture, but on a more heightened level.

First of all, one of the criticisms about hip-hop is that it promotes violence. When writing their music, black men in hip-hop tend to talk about violence that they got into whenever someone else tested their masculinity and made them look like a “punk.” The documentary discusses the need for black men to act “hard,” and so they talk about memories of being in fights and being imprisoned. However, if you consider mainstream American culture, violence has been associated with masculinity in all aspects of entertainment. For instance, sports such as boxing and football, video games such as “Call of Duty,” and movies such as “James Bond” all promote this tough, masculine, violent image that hip-hop does.

Another controversy that the movie discussed was the role of women. Hip-hop videos almost always show women wearing little clothing, and many songs discuss how the writer got laid and was “pimpin’” (I’ve never seen that word with a “g”) at the club. However, many classic American movies, such as James Bond and Indiana Jones, depict a man who sleeps with numerous women, with every movie having a different one.

Finally, the issue of homosexuality. The documentary discussed how none of the popular hip-hop artists today are gay, and gays have trouble making an impact on the genre. In their songs, black men always have to assert their masculinity, and being called a “faggot” is the most offensive thing that they can be called. However, although not as blatant, discrimination against homosexuality exists in American culture. In this country, gay marriage is still illegal, and most romance movies involve straight couples.

Although I definitely agree that hip-hop promotes the hypermasculine image of black men more so than American culture as a whole does, I think that it is unfair to indict hip-hop music without indicting our mainstream culture as well. In order to solve the “problem” of hip-hop, the problem needs to be addressed in all of America first.

Post-Racial America?

With the election of Barack Obama, our first black president, Americans would like to think that we have finally shifted into a post-racial society. However, the racial controversies that Barack Obama has encountered over the course of his presidency suggest otherwise. For instance, in July of 2009, the arrest of African-American Professor Henry Louis Gates in his home by Officer James Crowley of the Cambridge Police ignited a debate as to whether the arrest was racially motivated, and President Obama’s remarks about the potential racial undertones of the arrest sparked a media controversy. Also, the Tea Party Movement, which started as a response to Obama’s proposed health care bill, was accused of racism and opposition to a black president. These are just two of several racial controversies that have occurred in the last three years. I believe that America is not yet post-racial. But at the same time, one has to ask, is it even possible for America to ever be completely post-racial? My vote is for no. Not entirely, at least.

As we discussed a few weeks ago in class, the majority of whites seem to be “order theorists,” who assert that the “Civil Rights problem” is a problem of exclusion from institutions, and now that blacks can enter any institution, the problem has been solved. However, most blacks are “conflict theorists,” who believe that, although the problem has gotten better, the problem is structural, and that there are systematic and structural barriers to equality (i.e. job discrimination). That is why blacks are more likely than whites to advocate welfare programs and other government-run programs.

Why does this disconnect exist? Bobo’s and Charles’ “Race in the American Mind: From the Moynihan Report to the Obama Candidacy” discussed this. First of all, history plays a key role. The past is something that cannot be ignored when discussing race. The struggles of blacks have been different from the “struggles” of whites in America. Secondly, since whites were the segregators and blacks were the victims of segregation, there is an obvious animosity, one that will probably never be completely eliminated. Because of these differing contexts, blacks and whites tend to have different views of how much government should be involved in their lives, and these differences prevent them from completely integrating.

Also, another barrier to a “post-racial era” is that blacks and whites tend to have different goals. Many whites want to assimilate the blacks into American culture so that race can only be a matter of skin color. But at the same time, blacks are trying to maintain a sense of identity and culture. Many whites would not identify themselves as white. They would sooner identify themselves by their sex, age, personality, etc. Blacks, however, are more likely to identify themselves as black. Blacks realize the importance of their culture and have pride in the progress that their race has made over the last few centuries. Thus, while whites want to absorb blacks, blacks want to hold on to their heritage and identity.

Because of what I stated, I feel that the “elephant” of race will always exist in politics, media, and even relationships. I feel like the best thing that America can achieve is a mutual respect and an understanding of some of the fundamental differences between the two races. If we are sensitive to each other’s backgrounds and realize and accept the different cultures, we can get past this “race problem.”

Responsibility of Actions

Today what extent can we be held accountable for what the people around us say? We must understand that our histories and relationships are far more complex than most people are willing to give us credit for. Living in an individualist country, we commonly look past the situation and place blame on the individual’s actions. During the 2008 Presidential Elections, President Obama was scrutinized for attending Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr., United Church of Christ in Chicago. When confronted at a press conference, Obama explains Rev. Wright’s attitude by exploring the history of the United States and emphasizes that there are aspects of our history that are respectable and there are aspects that are shameful. He highlights how Racism was once written into our nations laws, yet we never hold the white man standing next to us accountable for those actions. We cannot deny the complexity of American history. As much as we would like to deny it today, Racism is embedded in the deepest roots of this country. Also written into our constitution is Freedom of Speech, which allows us to speak our mind and explore our past attempting to make sense of our history. One man’s thoughts expressed, does not mean that every man who hears them believes them. The press attempted to hold Senator Obama accountable for Wrights words and tried to portray Obama as a black elitist.

Obama walked a thin line during his presidential candidacy. Declaring himself as a black man, he changed the nations views on race in the United States. People looked for flaws in Obama’s life and this is what they found. Handling the situation admirably, Obama did not deny his relationship with Reverend Wright, yet opened the eyes of many Americans by calling them out. Obama acknowledges that racial prejudice exists yet America is the only country that allows him as a black man to reap all the benefits he has gained as a citizen. Playing his cards delicately, Obama enlightens the public that he can not be held accountable for what his Reverend has said, he even goes as far to state that he has disagreed with a lot of things that Wright has preached about but it is his faith as a Christian that comes first. Although I agree that citizens had a right to be discouraged by Obama’s acts, if this is the only flaw they could truly find it appears shameful. Obama cannot be too black or be too white and instead has to bridge his past and his family’s heritage in order to find himself as a man fit for America. So I ask you, do you think it was right of the press to place blame on Obama for attending these sermons? Should Obama be held responsible for his Reverends actions?

Students of Color

I am ¼ Asian and because of this fact I can apply for the Dean’s Scholarship at Rhodes College and receive $20,000 off my tuition. However, I applied to Rhodes as a female Caucasian, and received no scholarship and instead pay the full $36,464. Rhodes College attempts to unite their students and blur the line of racial prejudice that surrounds our campus, however, in reality they only make the line more distinct. On the Rhodes College website, under the About Rhodes Fact Sheet, Rhodes second bullet point about the “student body” is that “Students of color make up 19% of the student body.” This statement comes before the percent of women and men that attend Rhodes or even the acceptance rate. I find this amusing that this fact comes second to the amount of students enrolled at Rhodes College.

The College attempts to place emphasis on their racial diversity yet at the same time pretend that prejudice does not exist. When you click on the link “Students of color” a picture of African American students pop up with an Asian in the corner at a bowling place and a quote below the picture states “Be the change you wish to see in the world” Mahatma Ghandi. There are 5 organizations that Rhodes highlights and yet you will not receive any information about these groups unless you apply as a “student of color” Rhodes College will send emails to “students of colors” attempting to make them feel more comfortable and try to bring them together as a group. But they do not try to intermingle the races. I have never been invited to a student of color meeting and I doubt many of my peers have either because they are not offered to people who are “Caucasian.” The picture of the “students of color” does not have one white person in it. Rhodes has never offered me the chance to go bowling with a small group of students. For this I feel that Rhodes plays their hand against prejudice too strongly. They highlight it more than they try to intermingle it. So I ask this, is Rhodes discriminating against the 81% of the students that are not considered “students of color?” Why does skin color or race get you a scholarship? I feel that Rhodes believes that it is important to highlight that they accept not only white students but are they doing this in the best way possible?

The Fight for an Equal Education

In a Jim Crow society, the ability to seek equality was near impossible. The inequality among blacks and white bled into each and every institution, especially education. The immense disparities between the white schools and blacks schools were quite alarming. The white students received new course materials, school equipment, better quality facilities, and bus transportation to and from school. The black students watched on the sidelines as the white student were showered with a number of advantages over black students. The black community was opposed to the growing disparities between the two communities and found ways to supply the materials they could to resource their students. As the black community continued to rally around the schools students in support, finally in 1954 the legal system took notice.

In 1954, the Supreme Court ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka influenced public education in an extreme manner. The ruling pointed to the disparities between black and white education and found that black students were being deprived of an equal education. From this ruling the implementation of integrated schools arose. All across the country schools were told to integrate their students. Specifically in the South, school systems chose to take their time with this ruling. However as pressure rose, the ability to stay segregated became harder and harder.

The integration plan that Little Rock, Arkansas chose to instill began the integration process with the high school and then would systematically work its way down to the lower levels. In Little Rock nine black high school students chose to attend Central High School, an all white public school. These first nine students were embraced with hostility and rage. The first day that the nine black students arrived at Central High School they were faced with angry mobs of students and community members. The students were also confronted by the Arkansas National Guards upon the instruction of Arkansas’ Governor Orval Faubus, preventing their entry into the school. Following the national press this received, President Eisenhower commanded over 1,000 troops from the 101^st Airborne Division to be stationed as protection for the nine black students. This local concern rapidly became a national matter, and with action provided by the federal government changes began to occur. The following year, one of the original nine graduated from Central High School as the first black graduate. This graduation marked the beginning of a new hope for fair and just education for both blacks and whites.

Now, fast forwarding to our present day, the question I then pose is this: Are school systems considered fair and just today? When I think about our education here in Memphis, I can immediately recall public schools that are under funded and lack resources. Instead of specific disparities between blacks and whites in the education systems like the 1950s, today’s society has enormous disparities between social-economic levels. I feel like there are still struggles that we face as a nation that represents segregation within the education system, and the question then is: Is there a way to provide fair and just education for all members of society?

Creating Change: MLK

ED Nixon (a prominent Civil Rights Activist) called Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in as the major spokesman for the Civil Rights Movement. At the age of 26, King was given the responsibility to lead the nation in a fight against segregation. He approached the movement in a nonviolence manner, as his actions were watched around the world as he spoke across the country regarding race relations and equal rights. This YouTube video below provides a brief five-minute glimpse into King’s life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ank52Zi_S0

As the video explains, King was imprisoned over twenty times because of his involvement with the movement. One of his most famous pieces comes from a time he was in prison in 1963, known as “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. His letter is written in response to criticism he received calling his actions “unwise” and “untimely”. In the letter King makes many powerful and profound statements in defense of this nonviolent movement. He states, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I think a comment such as this makes a strong presence. This statement is at the foundation of the nonviolence approach. It shows the severity of the racial tension within society, and the significance in the need for change.

King explains the knowledge behind the nonviolence approach within this letter. He states, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action.” When looking specifically at the facts, King knew that injustices existed across the country for black people living in a white man’s world. He identified the injustice of inequality and then proceeded with negotiations, self-purification, and direct action. King goes on to explain the struggles they faced in following most of these basic steps,

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't

negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed,

this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create

such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly

refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the

issue that it can no longer be ignored…The purpose of our direct action program

is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to

negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has

our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue

rather than dialogue.

King makes a profound statement here as he is pointing out the obstacles that the movement has faced. His explanation shows that members of the movement are merely seeking to have a conversation in regards to the unequal rights between blacks and white, but that society and its officials have closed the door to negotiate their concerns.

Due to the lack of concern that the city officials and larger members of society showed towards the movement, King explains the necessity in the nonviolent action that is needed in order to create some small element of change. King states,

My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

King seems to make this statement with the understanding that he will not be able to change society as a whole in one nonviolent march or protest, but instead knows that if he changes one person’s heart, and then another, that this can effect many numbers in the future as the movement continues. The nonviolent approach is therefore effective in instilling change in individual’s hearts, and can therefore then affect much of society with time. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” provided a response that signified the importance of the movement and its nonviolence approach. He wrote with passion and conviction in order to show that he worked to make a difference. It was through letters like this and nonviolent protest and marches that individual’s lives were changed and a difference was made.