I am an avid reader, that much can be ascertained by the blogs themselves. However books that grab my attention are either non-fiction, current events, political and social in nature. Rarely do I find so much excitement in fiction as I have found in two novels I read recently George Orwell's epic 1984 and Ray Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451. Although two different authors, two different books with two different sets of characters and premises, they have a point of synthesis and that is they are about an inept and corrupted societies. The difference is whether it comes from the state or the people.
In 1984, Winston Smith is a citizen of a totalitarian society based off of war, communism, and authorianism. The principle villain in the novel is the Government with its thought police, youth leagues, telescreens spying on you at all times, the Two Minutes Hate, the backwards thinking and the dumbing down of society with the use of Newspeak. The government controls everything from economics down to reproduction. The Party (as its called) has its hands in every pot, it decides marriages and terms for divorce, it regulates that sex is only for the purpose of reproduction ("our duty to the party"), it even regulates facial expressions (facecrime: improper expression on the face). But the most important thing the Party does is it changes history, it modifies human behavior, it manipulates through nationalism and emotional appeals.
The Party manipulates thought. First by controlling the language with Newspeak (the official language). Newspeak is nonsense to say the least but the purpose of it is to eliminate thought. By limiting words or by changing their meaning they can control what people believe and what they say. The more famous sayings in the book are "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH". Notice that things are the opposite of what they really mean? This is common throughout the novel The Party even does the mind fucking when it comes to the branches of government: Ministry of Truth (which distorts the truth and blatantly changes history to fit The Party's agenda), Ministry of Peace (whose job it is to make war)< Ministry of Love (that concerns itself with law & order) and the Ministry of Plenty (economic concerns).
In the book The Party is an all powerful hero saving the people from its enemies in a perpetual state of war and fear. Fear of Eastasia, fear of Eurasia, fear of the thought police, fear of Goldstein (traitor to The Party, he dares to want freedom of speech) and The Party does thing using The Two Minutes Hate.
The Two Minutes Hate is sort of a nationwide shutdown, where all the citizens get together and watch a screen that shows their enemies attacking them. It instills fear and then shows that The Party will come to rescue them.
The worst infraction of The Party is that it changes history (Winston's actual job). The Party's motto is "WHO CONTROLS THE PAST...CONTROLS THE FUTURE". Winston's job is to edit each and every book and magazine to change words and history according to The Party's agenda at the time. The central problem is when Winston can no longer blissfully ignore that he is changing history and he seeks to find out what happened before The Party came along, before Big Brother (the head of state) and how he can escape or overthrow The Party altogether.
But BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU...and this is such a haunting statement and it is plastered all over the country but the people are supposed to believe that Big Brother is watching to PROTECT and not to oppress. But Winston says: "Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or outdoors, in the bath or in the bed-no escape. Nothing was your own except a few cubic centimeters inside your skull" (26). Your thoughts and if your thoughts were made public and were against The Party...needless to say things did not end well.
Now it is time to transfer to Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury's society is much, much different than Orwell's. In Bradbury's society it is the populace that is the oppressor. In F.451 the principle figure is Guy Montag a fireman, whose job is not to put out fires but to start them. In Bradbury's society the firemen burn books, arrest readers and the burn down the homes of people that read. The purpose of this is to keep people in a constant state of happiness and the belief that reading or people that read make others around them unhappy.
Captain Beatty, the firemen chief goes on a long speech about why books are banned:
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself. What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy. Isn't that it?" (59). Bradbury is white but is not talking about blacks here in fact before that statement he writes: "Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants..." (57). What Bradbury is saying is that censorship and mass media lead society to break down and in order to not offend anyone they stopped reading. It is a war on intellectualism that is being waged. The people are only interested in sports and television things that make people happy. Bradbury continues: "With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers and swimmers instead of knowers and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual' became the swear word it deserved to be" (58). He goes on: "Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn It. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn It. Someone's written a book about tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book." (60).The society is crumbling because pleasure has taken over. People like feeling good and readers muddy the waters. Guy decides to read, which is the conflict of the story, and puts everything in jeopardy. He learns that the society even polices itself, when people turn each other in for reading. The ignorance of the masses has forced itself on every individual in this book. The concept is sweeping, books must be burned because intellectuals upset people asking questions and forcing people to think, society must be dumbed down for mass media understanding, schools are ineffective anyway and the government doesn't care because a non-thinking, pleasure-oriented society is great for them.
The reason I chose these two novels are because I see alot of America today in them. Of course they are hyperbolic in some ways but there are glimpses of both in today's world. I believe it is important to read both of these novels to get a full understanding of what Bradbury & Orwell were thinking when they structured both of these societies but it is hard not to notice that these books are very, very relevant.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Malcolm X After Death
I have always had an interest in Malcolm's life. What he thought, what he believed, what he actually said. And now after years of reading books and websites and so on about Malcolm I feel like I understand the thought and the beliefs and the change of thoughts and beliefs that occurred during his life.
I recently came across a documentary entitled Political Assassinations and the topic of the documentary was Malcolm X. The talk of Malcolm's life and all the above parts of it aside. I found myself strangely interested in his death. The actual shooting, the investigation of his shooting and the national reaction to his death. Sure this is a daunting task, probably better fit for people who write books instead of blogs but I was able to find alot of things searching the web that I would like to share.
First let me give credit to The Malcolm X Project at Columbia University because without them I would never have found all the information I present here now. They're site is chock full of newspaper clippings from major media outlets written around the time of his death. It gives a very real perspective of how the media felt about Malcolm during his day.
The Shooting
The Audubon Ballroom. Harlem, New York 3:15pm
Anonymous Eyewitness: "Everybody turned and so did I, and then I heard Malcolm saying 'Be cool now, don't get excited' and then I heard this muffled sound and I saw Malcolm hit with his hands still raised and then he fell over the chairs behind him. And everybody was shouting and I saw someone firing a gun from under his coat behind me, I hit it [the floor] too. And he was firing like he was in some Western, running backward toward the door and firing at the same time." (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
The "someone" this eyewitness saw was named Thomas Hagan, a 22 year old Black Muslim firing what the Police Dept. Community Relations Bureau stated was a "double barreled shotgun with shortened barrels and stock" at a prone Malcolm. The melee that ensued after the shock of the shooting left Hagan himself shot in the leg and being pummeled by Malcolm supporters. Hagan then begged the police for assistance and after rescuing him, the police found in his coat pocket 4 unused .45-caliber shotgun shells (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
The Assistant Chief Inspector would state Malcolm was hit with 6 shots in the chest and 1 in the arm, which is contrary to the police saying Malcolm was struck with 7 bullets (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
. The Los Angeles Times (Feb. 22, 1965) would report that an autopsy found 16 wounds in Malcolm's body. Doctors messaged his heart but Malcolm was pronounced dead on arrival at 3:30pm.
Witness, Stanley Scott: "There was a scuffle in the back of the auditorium, possibly to distract from the assassins...shots rang out...men,women and children ran for cover. The stretched out on the floor and ducked under tables. His wife Betty--who was in the audience--ran about screaming hysterically, 'they're killing my husband' (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Witness "Registered Nurse": "Two men rushing the stage and firing from underneath their coats...I rushed to the stage even while the firing was going on...I don't know how I got on stage, but I threw myself down on who I thought was Malcolm--but it wasn't. I was willing to die for the man. I would have taken the bullets myself. Then I saw Malcolm and the firing stopped, and I tried to give him artificial respiration...I think he was dead then" (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Such chilling accounts of the assassination make the blood both boil and freeze. How one could recall such a deed so vividly makes it feel like you were there and that you yourself had seen and would never forget it. The media was very useful here but it wouldn't always be so.
The "Obituary"
New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965:
"Malcolm X had the ingredients for leadership but his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence not only set him apart from the responsible leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the overwhelming majority of Negroes. It marked him for notoriety and a violent end....Malcolm X's life was strangely and pitifully wasted. But this was because he did not seek to fit into society or the life of his own people....The world he saw through those horned-rimmed glasses of his was distorted and dark, But it was made darker still with his exaltation of fanaticism."
First thing I thought when I read that..."what the fuck kind of obituary is this?"
Then I had to remind myself its the 60s, and the writer--probably white, was not the biggest supporter of Malcolm's goals. The "fanaticism" argument is very prevalent in alot of the articles posted on the Columbia University site. I cannot imagine living during this time and being ignorant of what Malcolm stood for and this being my introduction or this being a proper farewell for him. Malcolm is colored a racist, a bigot, a radical, violent, ruthless and just about anything except a good man. His messages are cherry picked for the purpose of self-fulfilling prophecy. This is one of the times I am glad to be looking back and not being a person who lived during this time.
The Burial
This is perhaps my favorite part. The very unorthodox funeral for Malcolm seems to fit his life to me. Malcolm died El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, a believer in Orthodox Islam and as such there are certain ways of committing bodies to the ground. One of the big issues was that Malcolm was buried 6 days after death, Islamic law requires burial within 24 hours. His wife postponed the service so that Malcolm's African friends could attend. The service itself was held in a C.O.G.I.C (Church of God In Christ)church, a Christian church! One of Malcolm's religious advisors Sheik Faisal pointed out all the deviations of Malcolm's funeral from Islamic Law. Faisal stated that: "Death is a private matter between Allah and the deceased" and that "nothing should be done during the services that create emotion or a sense of bereavement". Yet both happened. There were sermons and eulogies both of which are a no-no, it was widely covered in the media, thus it wasn't necessarily a "private" matter.
The funeral did adhere to some Islamic fundamentals too. Malcolm was wrapped in the seven white shrouds in accordance and even though the service took place in a Christian church there were no hints of Christianity. The rule of no Christianity was a very serious one, if there were any Christian sermons or prayers etc Malcolm would have be deemed a non-believer in Islam altogether (New York Times. Feb. 28, 1965).
I felt a strange completeness, I felt closure after reading those clippings. Of course there are still many things to learn and more than just what a very few articles could cover but it gives a very broad overview which is something I never had before. So hopefully the reader of this blog learned a few things after reading it and as we approach Malcolm's 86th birthday on May 19, 2011 and although he has been dead for over 45 years there is still much to know, much more to uncover, many more books on him to read (Manning Marable recently released a book on him and I still haven't read the Alex Haley autobiography) but this will have to do for now.
I recently came across a documentary entitled Political Assassinations and the topic of the documentary was Malcolm X. The talk of Malcolm's life and all the above parts of it aside. I found myself strangely interested in his death. The actual shooting, the investigation of his shooting and the national reaction to his death. Sure this is a daunting task, probably better fit for people who write books instead of blogs but I was able to find alot of things searching the web that I would like to share.
First let me give credit to The Malcolm X Project at Columbia University because without them I would never have found all the information I present here now. They're site is chock full of newspaper clippings from major media outlets written around the time of his death. It gives a very real perspective of how the media felt about Malcolm during his day.
The Shooting
The Audubon Ballroom. Harlem, New York 3:15pm
Anonymous Eyewitness: "Everybody turned and so did I, and then I heard Malcolm saying 'Be cool now, don't get excited' and then I heard this muffled sound and I saw Malcolm hit with his hands still raised and then he fell over the chairs behind him. And everybody was shouting and I saw someone firing a gun from under his coat behind me, I hit it [the floor] too. And he was firing like he was in some Western, running backward toward the door and firing at the same time." (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
The "someone" this eyewitness saw was named Thomas Hagan, a 22 year old Black Muslim firing what the Police Dept. Community Relations Bureau stated was a "double barreled shotgun with shortened barrels and stock" at a prone Malcolm. The melee that ensued after the shock of the shooting left Hagan himself shot in the leg and being pummeled by Malcolm supporters. Hagan then begged the police for assistance and after rescuing him, the police found in his coat pocket 4 unused .45-caliber shotgun shells (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
The Assistant Chief Inspector would state Malcolm was hit with 6 shots in the chest and 1 in the arm, which is contrary to the police saying Malcolm was struck with 7 bullets (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
. The Los Angeles Times (Feb. 22, 1965) would report that an autopsy found 16 wounds in Malcolm's body. Doctors messaged his heart but Malcolm was pronounced dead on arrival at 3:30pm.
Witness, Stanley Scott: "There was a scuffle in the back of the auditorium, possibly to distract from the assassins...shots rang out...men,women and children ran for cover. The stretched out on the floor and ducked under tables. His wife Betty--who was in the audience--ran about screaming hysterically, 'they're killing my husband' (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Witness "Registered Nurse": "Two men rushing the stage and firing from underneath their coats...I rushed to the stage even while the firing was going on...I don't know how I got on stage, but I threw myself down on who I thought was Malcolm--but it wasn't. I was willing to die for the man. I would have taken the bullets myself. Then I saw Malcolm and the firing stopped, and I tried to give him artificial respiration...I think he was dead then" (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Such chilling accounts of the assassination make the blood both boil and freeze. How one could recall such a deed so vividly makes it feel like you were there and that you yourself had seen and would never forget it. The media was very useful here but it wouldn't always be so.
The "Obituary"
New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965:
"Malcolm X had the ingredients for leadership but his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence not only set him apart from the responsible leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the overwhelming majority of Negroes. It marked him for notoriety and a violent end....Malcolm X's life was strangely and pitifully wasted. But this was because he did not seek to fit into society or the life of his own people....The world he saw through those horned-rimmed glasses of his was distorted and dark, But it was made darker still with his exaltation of fanaticism."
First thing I thought when I read that..."what the fuck kind of obituary is this?"
Then I had to remind myself its the 60s, and the writer--probably white, was not the biggest supporter of Malcolm's goals. The "fanaticism" argument is very prevalent in alot of the articles posted on the Columbia University site. I cannot imagine living during this time and being ignorant of what Malcolm stood for and this being my introduction or this being a proper farewell for him. Malcolm is colored a racist, a bigot, a radical, violent, ruthless and just about anything except a good man. His messages are cherry picked for the purpose of self-fulfilling prophecy. This is one of the times I am glad to be looking back and not being a person who lived during this time.
The Burial
This is perhaps my favorite part. The very unorthodox funeral for Malcolm seems to fit his life to me. Malcolm died El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, a believer in Orthodox Islam and as such there are certain ways of committing bodies to the ground. One of the big issues was that Malcolm was buried 6 days after death, Islamic law requires burial within 24 hours. His wife postponed the service so that Malcolm's African friends could attend. The service itself was held in a C.O.G.I.C (Church of God In Christ)church, a Christian church! One of Malcolm's religious advisors Sheik Faisal pointed out all the deviations of Malcolm's funeral from Islamic Law. Faisal stated that: "Death is a private matter between Allah and the deceased" and that "nothing should be done during the services that create emotion or a sense of bereavement". Yet both happened. There were sermons and eulogies both of which are a no-no, it was widely covered in the media, thus it wasn't necessarily a "private" matter.
The funeral did adhere to some Islamic fundamentals too. Malcolm was wrapped in the seven white shrouds in accordance and even though the service took place in a Christian church there were no hints of Christianity. The rule of no Christianity was a very serious one, if there were any Christian sermons or prayers etc Malcolm would have be deemed a non-believer in Islam altogether (New York Times. Feb. 28, 1965).
I felt a strange completeness, I felt closure after reading those clippings. Of course there are still many things to learn and more than just what a very few articles could cover but it gives a very broad overview which is something I never had before. So hopefully the reader of this blog learned a few things after reading it and as we approach Malcolm's 86th birthday on May 19, 2011 and although he has been dead for over 45 years there is still much to know, much more to uncover, many more books on him to read (Manning Marable recently released a book on him and I still haven't read the Alex Haley autobiography) but this will have to do for now.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Bone Thugs N' Harmony
I can remember not being a big rap fan unitl 1994 (I was 10 years old) which was the first time I heard "First of tha Month". Its a strange story I tell everyone. I didnt start out listening to Nas or Notorious B.I.G. or 2Pac but for me Bone was bigger than all of those guys. I pitched a bitch to get the tape but never got it. I pretty much gave up on it until one Christmas I got a boombox radio and 3 tapes. The 3 tapes were Bone Thugs N' Harmony "E.1999 Eternal", LL Cool J "Mr. Smith" and Blackstreet. Of those 3 tapes I burned one out completely, listened to one once and never opened the other. I will leave it to the reader to make the distinction but one thing was for sure the Bone tape barely lasted 6 months before I needed a new one. The biggest hit of their careers "The Crossroads" wasn't even out yet and my tape had the original version of the song with the same name.
I can remember the first time I played it. The darkness of the music was compelling to me. It didnt have the party atmosphere everything on the radio had. It was dark, gritty and almost scary and when my mom heard someone epeaking in tongues she almost wanted to take it back. I had no real connection to the content, meaning I didnt know what the fuck they were talking about but I knew I liked it. I could only catch some of the lyrics but what I was able to make out I never stopped repeating and I must have played Mr. Bill Collector 400 times a day, which was very hard on tapes with all the rewinding and everything but I didnt care.
I can remember when the Art of War double disc album came out. I didnt have a cd player so I had to hear it at a friend's house and bootleg it for myself when I got home. This was of the only time I paid attention to a 2Pac verse http://youtu.be/9Z9nXD8HjIAand really I wasnt impressed. However I was impressed with Bizzy and with the intensity and speed he delivered his verse it was juat phenomenal for me as a kid. I didnt like that album as much as I did E.1999 Eternal and this was without knowing what the rest of the world thought about the group at all.
Shortly after Art of War the breakup rumors started because Bizzy was releasing a solo album (Heaven'z Movie). I didnt believe it until I saw the video for his first single http://youtu.be/4YNRfboGVQQSeeing the other members in the video kinda gave me a feeling of relief. Heaven'z Movie was my favorite album for a long time (and its still one of my favorites today) but I still preferred to hear them all together as a group.
Krayzie Bone released a double disc solo album ("Thug Mentality") in 1998 (I believe) and it was the second cd I ever bought (DMX It's Dark and Hell Is Hot was the first). I skipped school and went to the record store to get it.I remember played it very loudly for at least 5 hours when I got it. I didnt like it as much as Heaven'z Movie but I still loved it and since I had finally stepped into the cd game I could play it all day wihtout worrying about rewinding and fast forwarding.
It would be a long time until the next Bone album which was in 2000, I think BTNHResurrection. Which was in my opinion a great album. I wont continue to go forward with how I felt about each release because I burned pretty much all of them out within a year.
The important thing I wanted to get to in this blog was not that I am a huge Bone mark but that my love of all music came from my love of Bone. The harmonizing, which dudes swear they hate, was started with Bone. Buddah Lova'z was almost completely sang and it was released in 1994-1995. About 7 years before swaggerjackers like Nelly and Ja Rule would be doing duets with Ashanti. About 10 years before characters like Drake would be making Teen Beat/Heartthrob hip-hop, yet Bone doesnt get any respect for it.
Granted Bone was more style than substance. Which means the delivery and cadence was more important than lyrics but the lyrics werent wack by any means. I mean no Krayzie Bone isnt Nas but hes not wack either. Bone has a style so unique that they can do songs with Phil Collins and still put together dope shit with street rappers like The Game. No other act in hip-hop history could mesh well with Mariah Carey and 2Pac but Bone.
The creativity of each individual member in itself was insane. You have Krayzie remaking Aaliyah's If They Only Knew and creating the same vibe. Let's not get started on how Krayzie alone can take an R&B song from wack folks like Ciara and make something completely new and hot.
So even though the group is feuding...again. And Krayzie has left the group a long time fan like me will still support even if the mainstream continues to ignore them and not see what they brought to the game. "Black hippys" like Curren$y, Wiz Khalifa (which the majority of his album Rolling Papers sounds like commercialized Bone album)should pay homage. Harmonizers like Chamillionaire, Drake, Lil Wayne and Nelly should bow down to the almighty Bone Thugs N Harmony.
I can remember the first time I played it. The darkness of the music was compelling to me. It didnt have the party atmosphere everything on the radio had. It was dark, gritty and almost scary and when my mom heard someone epeaking in tongues she almost wanted to take it back. I had no real connection to the content, meaning I didnt know what the fuck they were talking about but I knew I liked it. I could only catch some of the lyrics but what I was able to make out I never stopped repeating and I must have played Mr. Bill Collector 400 times a day, which was very hard on tapes with all the rewinding and everything but I didnt care.
I can remember when the Art of War double disc album came out. I didnt have a cd player so I had to hear it at a friend's house and bootleg it for myself when I got home. This was of the only time I paid attention to a 2Pac verse http://youtu.be/9Z9nXD8HjIAand really I wasnt impressed. However I was impressed with Bizzy and with the intensity and speed he delivered his verse it was juat phenomenal for me as a kid. I didnt like that album as much as I did E.1999 Eternal and this was without knowing what the rest of the world thought about the group at all.
Shortly after Art of War the breakup rumors started because Bizzy was releasing a solo album (Heaven'z Movie). I didnt believe it until I saw the video for his first single http://youtu.be/4YNRfboGVQQSeeing the other members in the video kinda gave me a feeling of relief. Heaven'z Movie was my favorite album for a long time (and its still one of my favorites today) but I still preferred to hear them all together as a group.
Krayzie Bone released a double disc solo album ("Thug Mentality") in 1998 (I believe) and it was the second cd I ever bought (DMX It's Dark and Hell Is Hot was the first). I skipped school and went to the record store to get it.I remember played it very loudly for at least 5 hours when I got it. I didnt like it as much as Heaven'z Movie but I still loved it and since I had finally stepped into the cd game I could play it all day wihtout worrying about rewinding and fast forwarding.
It would be a long time until the next Bone album which was in 2000, I think BTNHResurrection. Which was in my opinion a great album. I wont continue to go forward with how I felt about each release because I burned pretty much all of them out within a year.
The important thing I wanted to get to in this blog was not that I am a huge Bone mark but that my love of all music came from my love of Bone. The harmonizing, which dudes swear they hate, was started with Bone. Buddah Lova'z was almost completely sang and it was released in 1994-1995. About 7 years before swaggerjackers like Nelly and Ja Rule would be doing duets with Ashanti. About 10 years before characters like Drake would be making Teen Beat/Heartthrob hip-hop, yet Bone doesnt get any respect for it.
Granted Bone was more style than substance. Which means the delivery and cadence was more important than lyrics but the lyrics werent wack by any means. I mean no Krayzie Bone isnt Nas but hes not wack either. Bone has a style so unique that they can do songs with Phil Collins and still put together dope shit with street rappers like The Game. No other act in hip-hop history could mesh well with Mariah Carey and 2Pac but Bone.
The creativity of each individual member in itself was insane. You have Krayzie remaking Aaliyah's If They Only Knew and creating the same vibe. Let's not get started on how Krayzie alone can take an R&B song from wack folks like Ciara and make something completely new and hot.
So even though the group is feuding...again. And Krayzie has left the group a long time fan like me will still support even if the mainstream continues to ignore them and not see what they brought to the game. "Black hippys" like Curren$y, Wiz Khalifa (which the majority of his album Rolling Papers sounds like commercialized Bone album)should pay homage. Harmonizers like Chamillionaire, Drake, Lil Wayne and Nelly should bow down to the almighty Bone Thugs N Harmony.
Professional Hood Shit
Regular readers know I love hip-hop. It's my favorite medium of entertainment and despite the fact that I get frustrated with the content and imagery at times it will forever be my favorite. My love of hip-hop doesn't just stop at the music but it extends to battling too. Now hip-hop fans are used to the concept of battles on wax where diss records are exchanged between artists who are competing but what I am talking about is street rap battles.
Street rap battles have always taken place but with the influx of technology they are now recorded and spread throughout the web, shit there are even professional street battle rap leagues. SMACK DVD in the early 2000s, to my knowledge, began the trend of recording and selling street battles between unknown artists. The battles would be added to a dvd entitled S.M.A.C.K (Street Music Arts Culture Knowledge) that featured interviews and other interactions with well known rappers. S.M.A.C.K was used to help the careers of many of today's artists like Jae Millz, Nicki Minaj, Maino, Cory Gunz etc when they were just local New York artists. Rather they were battling or just kickin' a freestyle or just doing an interview S.M.A.C.K. gave them an outlet to get their face in the streets across the nation. Here in Detroit it was hard as hell to get S.M.A.C.K. dvds we had to wait for the hustler's from New York to come to town and even then we had to hope they had a few of the dvds to sell. It didn't take me and my friends long to become more enamored with the battles than the rest of the dvd. It was interesting to see DMX do a street interview uncensored, drunk, high and whatever else but watching those battles was the real treat. It seems that alot of people agreed and the original S.M.A.C.K dvd format was dropped to focus on the battles.
S.M.A.C.K. dvd disappeared for awhile and was restarted as URL (Ultimate Rap League). URL stages rap battles in the same way boxing events are staged. 2 guys are chosen to battle, they negitiate fees, search for venues, have a production team and the whole nine yards. Despite having better production, contractual agreements and the battles now taking place in venues URL has kept the street feel it had back when it literally took place in the streets. However URL were not the first to make that jump.
For a short time there existed another battle rap league called the Fight Klub. Fight Klub took place in venues and had rules such as time limits, that S.M.A.C.K didn't have at the time. Fight Klub was wildly popular for a time, so popular that it was picked up and given time on MTV2 as a episodic television show. Unfortunately that didn't last long and the Fight Klub ultimately folded and was taken off the air.
Street rap leagues started popping up everywhere there were multiple that popped up just in New York. Soon there were rap leagues all over the country that had the basic set up of the original S.M.A.C.K dvds. With the birth of youtube these leagues were able to stretch their talent all over the country by doing this some of the talent of those other leagues began getting spots in URL.
I like to think of URL as the WWE of battle rap leagues. Wrestling being another one of my guilty pleasures i can recognize how both were able to become huge in their respective fields. WWF raided smaller promotions and signed away the talent to exclusive contracts and the promoted the promotion as the best in the world. URL is very similar. URL does not have exclusive contracts which means that talent most known for being in URL can take their talents to smaller leagues and compete with that leagues top guys and make more money. The biggest way URL has become the WWE how street rap is because URL is considered even by competitors (and it's actually URL's tagline) "The World's Most Respected Rap League".
I will post some of my favorite URL/S.M.A.C.K. battles as well as a few from their competitors to give the reader a sense of how the street rap game has changed and evolved into a business.
Hitman Holla (St. Louis) vs Arsonal Da Rebel
(Newark) (2010) a recent example of what URL is today.
Jae Millz (Harlem) vs Murda Mook (Harlem)
great example of what URL was during the S.M.A.C.K. dvd days. I can remember waiting for these dvds to come out monthly.
Iron Solomon vs Jin Tha Emcee from the Fight Klub. This shows how popular and culturally diverse battle rapping has become. Solomon a Jewish guy versus Jin a Chinese emcee. A great battle.
Street rap battles have always taken place but with the influx of technology they are now recorded and spread throughout the web, shit there are even professional street battle rap leagues. SMACK DVD in the early 2000s, to my knowledge, began the trend of recording and selling street battles between unknown artists. The battles would be added to a dvd entitled S.M.A.C.K (Street Music Arts Culture Knowledge) that featured interviews and other interactions with well known rappers. S.M.A.C.K was used to help the careers of many of today's artists like Jae Millz, Nicki Minaj, Maino, Cory Gunz etc when they were just local New York artists. Rather they were battling or just kickin' a freestyle or just doing an interview S.M.A.C.K. gave them an outlet to get their face in the streets across the nation. Here in Detroit it was hard as hell to get S.M.A.C.K. dvds we had to wait for the hustler's from New York to come to town and even then we had to hope they had a few of the dvds to sell. It didn't take me and my friends long to become more enamored with the battles than the rest of the dvd. It was interesting to see DMX do a street interview uncensored, drunk, high and whatever else but watching those battles was the real treat. It seems that alot of people agreed and the original S.M.A.C.K dvd format was dropped to focus on the battles.
S.M.A.C.K. dvd disappeared for awhile and was restarted as URL (Ultimate Rap League). URL stages rap battles in the same way boxing events are staged. 2 guys are chosen to battle, they negitiate fees, search for venues, have a production team and the whole nine yards. Despite having better production, contractual agreements and the battles now taking place in venues URL has kept the street feel it had back when it literally took place in the streets. However URL were not the first to make that jump.
For a short time there existed another battle rap league called the Fight Klub. Fight Klub took place in venues and had rules such as time limits, that S.M.A.C.K didn't have at the time. Fight Klub was wildly popular for a time, so popular that it was picked up and given time on MTV2 as a episodic television show. Unfortunately that didn't last long and the Fight Klub ultimately folded and was taken off the air.
Street rap leagues started popping up everywhere there were multiple that popped up just in New York. Soon there were rap leagues all over the country that had the basic set up of the original S.M.A.C.K dvds. With the birth of youtube these leagues were able to stretch their talent all over the country by doing this some of the talent of those other leagues began getting spots in URL.
I like to think of URL as the WWE of battle rap leagues. Wrestling being another one of my guilty pleasures i can recognize how both were able to become huge in their respective fields. WWF raided smaller promotions and signed away the talent to exclusive contracts and the promoted the promotion as the best in the world. URL is very similar. URL does not have exclusive contracts which means that talent most known for being in URL can take their talents to smaller leagues and compete with that leagues top guys and make more money. The biggest way URL has become the WWE how street rap is because URL is considered even by competitors (and it's actually URL's tagline) "The World's Most Respected Rap League".
I will post some of my favorite URL/S.M.A.C.K. battles as well as a few from their competitors to give the reader a sense of how the street rap game has changed and evolved into a business.
Hitman Holla (St. Louis) vs Arsonal Da Rebel
(Newark) (2010) a recent example of what URL is today.
Jae Millz (Harlem) vs Murda Mook (Harlem)
great example of what URL was during the S.M.A.C.K. dvd days. I can remember waiting for these dvds to come out monthly.
Iron Solomon vs Jin Tha Emcee from the Fight Klub. This shows how popular and culturally diverse battle rapping has become. Solomon a Jewish guy versus Jin a Chinese emcee. A great battle.
A Dying Civilization
"A civiliation that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization. A civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization. A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization."-Aime Cesaire Discourse on Colonialism (1955)
When these words were written Cesaire was furious with the concept of Western colonialism. The French had brought "civilization" to Algeria and brought with them barbarity and oppression. In 1955, the United States did not differ from the French occupation of Algeria and Vietnam too much. Blacks in America faced similar harshness. Under constant threat of violence and injustice, Blacks in America should have sympathized with their African brothers in this regard. In the 1960's Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) in his book with Charles Hamilton entitled "Black Power", asked the question that are Blacks in America a colonized people. It is hard to answer that they weren't. Much like all colonized peoples Blacks in America were being forced into integrating with a culutre, which considered even if he was successful, inferior and all their ideas and thoughts to be of no consquence to the majority of society.
This idea of inferiority and of colonialization has expanded greatly since the question Carmichael and Hamilton asked 40 years ago. The colony expanded from Africans, to Black Americans, to now its just the poor. The poor of every race are now the most inconsquential people on Earth. It could be argued that it has always been that way from the days of this country's genesis to today and that would be true but it is at its most visible in today's America. Much like in Algeria, where the Black population greatly outnumbered the French, yet in the department of power and the ability to push and promote their social, economic and political ideals the French stood far and beyond. The small French population was able to trick the masses into thinking that what was in the French interest was ultimately in the interest of the Algeria. This idea lead to the Algerians wanting to follow in the footsteps of the French. So as Frantz Fanon stated there were Algerians who sought to speak better French than the Frenchmen, they were determined to prove their worth to the Frenchmen and it perpetuated a feeling of inferiority. Looking for approval is a sign of inferiority and this is what the Algerian attempted to do constantly but it is also what the poor attempt to do to the rich in America today.
The poor and the middle class in America are the majority yet they are constantly bombarded with literature, shows and ideas that make them feel inadequate. They allow themselves to be scapegoated when the rich make mistakes (see the 2008 economic crash) and they fully believe the concept that what is good for the rich is good for us all. This mentality leads to corporatism and what Dr. Cornel West calls "free-market fundamentalism". Free-market fundamentalism is one of the ideas West feels is a direct threat to America's democracy and is highlighted in his book "Democracy Matters". "Free-market fundamentalism posits the unregulated and unfettered free market...where business leaders with wealth and power are worshipped" (3). Deregulation of private sector mediums has yet to produce anything more than constriction of consumer choice and fat wallets for corporations. Business leaders such as Donald Trump believe that because they made a couple dollars at one point that they now have the ability to lead a nation. And believe me there are people who think that being a CEO makes one a top contender to be President. We see the deification of people like Trump on television all the time and it has gotten to the point where we almost accept the concept of people like him being better than the rest of us, despite people like him making mistakes that cost us jobs, homes and general well being. I will end the topic of free-market fundamentalism with a few quotes before going forward:
"The oppressive effect of the prevailing market moralities leads to a form of sleepwalking from womb to tomb, with the majority of citizens content to focus on private careers and be distracted with stimulating amusements."-Cornel West
"Capitalist society, at its present stage, is incapable of establishing a concept of rights of all men, just as it has proved incapable of establishing a system of individual ethics."-Aime Cesaire
"You can't operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic..you show me a capitalist and I'll show you a bloodsucker."-Malcolm X
Despite the quotes and the overall feel of the post so far I am not attempting to make an argument for socialism or communism. What I am making an argument for is in the opening quote: "A civiliation that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization." America has become a decadent society. A society that creates problems by favoring the ideas of a few over the rights of the many and then refusing to acknowledge that those concepts are the very issue with society. Going back to the economic collapse of 2008, one who did some research could see that deregulation of the investment and commercial banks lead to the collapse, yet we are told that it was the poor folks who failed to pay their mortgages and some accepted that, mainly because it's what the corporate media and it's bosses has accepted as the truth.
"A civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization." America is stricken. We are taught not to see the amount of unemployed people in this nation today. We are told by the corporate media that unemployment is dropping, well that may be true but there are ways of manipulating those figures, such as people no longer able to collect unemployment being dumped from the unemployment rolls and no longer counting towards the unemployment rate (they are no longer in the labor force after a certain time). We don't see that people cannot afford healthcare, instead we are taught that we have "the best healthcare in the world" and that it's the best because it's for-profit.
"A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization." America was founded as a "democracy" or so we are told. America is not and never was a democratic nation, it is a republican nation similar to Rome. In a republican government the people vote for a representative who then argues and makes decisions on behalf of his electorate. This deception is spread everyday, how can we force democracy on Iraq when we don't have one? Free-markets and capitalism a.k.a "rugged individualism" where a person makes his wealth from the sweat of his own brow and should be entitled to keep all that he earns, sounds great. Except for the fact that this country was built upon slavery, which is forced servitude, and capitalism works best when it has a significantly weaker class whether its slaves or sweatshops (which American corporations use). The concept of citizenship and voting have been so warped that corporations have "rights" that were only intended for actual human beings. Money is speech creates a concept of bribery (they call it lobbying) that the common man cannot compete with. How can a farmer or regular working man lobby his government official when his interests could directly clash with the interests of a huge corporation? America is a dying nation and it is because people have become effectively second-class citizens and have been colonized by huge multinational corporations that now have rights greater than the average citizen and government in their pockets.
When these words were written Cesaire was furious with the concept of Western colonialism. The French had brought "civilization" to Algeria and brought with them barbarity and oppression. In 1955, the United States did not differ from the French occupation of Algeria and Vietnam too much. Blacks in America faced similar harshness. Under constant threat of violence and injustice, Blacks in America should have sympathized with their African brothers in this regard. In the 1960's Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) in his book with Charles Hamilton entitled "Black Power", asked the question that are Blacks in America a colonized people. It is hard to answer that they weren't. Much like all colonized peoples Blacks in America were being forced into integrating with a culutre, which considered even if he was successful, inferior and all their ideas and thoughts to be of no consquence to the majority of society.
This idea of inferiority and of colonialization has expanded greatly since the question Carmichael and Hamilton asked 40 years ago. The colony expanded from Africans, to Black Americans, to now its just the poor. The poor of every race are now the most inconsquential people on Earth. It could be argued that it has always been that way from the days of this country's genesis to today and that would be true but it is at its most visible in today's America. Much like in Algeria, where the Black population greatly outnumbered the French, yet in the department of power and the ability to push and promote their social, economic and political ideals the French stood far and beyond. The small French population was able to trick the masses into thinking that what was in the French interest was ultimately in the interest of the Algeria. This idea lead to the Algerians wanting to follow in the footsteps of the French. So as Frantz Fanon stated there were Algerians who sought to speak better French than the Frenchmen, they were determined to prove their worth to the Frenchmen and it perpetuated a feeling of inferiority. Looking for approval is a sign of inferiority and this is what the Algerian attempted to do constantly but it is also what the poor attempt to do to the rich in America today.
The poor and the middle class in America are the majority yet they are constantly bombarded with literature, shows and ideas that make them feel inadequate. They allow themselves to be scapegoated when the rich make mistakes (see the 2008 economic crash) and they fully believe the concept that what is good for the rich is good for us all. This mentality leads to corporatism and what Dr. Cornel West calls "free-market fundamentalism". Free-market fundamentalism is one of the ideas West feels is a direct threat to America's democracy and is highlighted in his book "Democracy Matters". "Free-market fundamentalism posits the unregulated and unfettered free market...where business leaders with wealth and power are worshipped" (3). Deregulation of private sector mediums has yet to produce anything more than constriction of consumer choice and fat wallets for corporations. Business leaders such as Donald Trump believe that because they made a couple dollars at one point that they now have the ability to lead a nation. And believe me there are people who think that being a CEO makes one a top contender to be President. We see the deification of people like Trump on television all the time and it has gotten to the point where we almost accept the concept of people like him being better than the rest of us, despite people like him making mistakes that cost us jobs, homes and general well being. I will end the topic of free-market fundamentalism with a few quotes before going forward:
"The oppressive effect of the prevailing market moralities leads to a form of sleepwalking from womb to tomb, with the majority of citizens content to focus on private careers and be distracted with stimulating amusements."-Cornel West
"Capitalist society, at its present stage, is incapable of establishing a concept of rights of all men, just as it has proved incapable of establishing a system of individual ethics."-Aime Cesaire
"You can't operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic..you show me a capitalist and I'll show you a bloodsucker."-Malcolm X
Despite the quotes and the overall feel of the post so far I am not attempting to make an argument for socialism or communism. What I am making an argument for is in the opening quote: "A civiliation that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization." America has become a decadent society. A society that creates problems by favoring the ideas of a few over the rights of the many and then refusing to acknowledge that those concepts are the very issue with society. Going back to the economic collapse of 2008, one who did some research could see that deregulation of the investment and commercial banks lead to the collapse, yet we are told that it was the poor folks who failed to pay their mortgages and some accepted that, mainly because it's what the corporate media and it's bosses has accepted as the truth.
"A civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization." America is stricken. We are taught not to see the amount of unemployed people in this nation today. We are told by the corporate media that unemployment is dropping, well that may be true but there are ways of manipulating those figures, such as people no longer able to collect unemployment being dumped from the unemployment rolls and no longer counting towards the unemployment rate (they are no longer in the labor force after a certain time). We don't see that people cannot afford healthcare, instead we are taught that we have "the best healthcare in the world" and that it's the best because it's for-profit.
"A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization." America was founded as a "democracy" or so we are told. America is not and never was a democratic nation, it is a republican nation similar to Rome. In a republican government the people vote for a representative who then argues and makes decisions on behalf of his electorate. This deception is spread everyday, how can we force democracy on Iraq when we don't have one? Free-markets and capitalism a.k.a "rugged individualism" where a person makes his wealth from the sweat of his own brow and should be entitled to keep all that he earns, sounds great. Except for the fact that this country was built upon slavery, which is forced servitude, and capitalism works best when it has a significantly weaker class whether its slaves or sweatshops (which American corporations use). The concept of citizenship and voting have been so warped that corporations have "rights" that were only intended for actual human beings. Money is speech creates a concept of bribery (they call it lobbying) that the common man cannot compete with. How can a farmer or regular working man lobby his government official when his interests could directly clash with the interests of a huge corporation? America is a dying nation and it is because people have become effectively second-class citizens and have been colonized by huge multinational corporations that now have rights greater than the average citizen and government in their pockets.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Robber Barons
A robber baron is a corporate official (or I would add entity) that uses exploitation of workers (and I would add resources) to make their money. The term was coined in 1934 by Matthew Josephson to describe the rich men of his time. Over the years they have had many names ("captains of industry") but we call them "billionaires" or the "private sector" today. The purpose of this column is to highlight the robber barons of yesteryear and those of today and what they have done to earn that title. We will discuss the effects these entities have had on the public as well.
The Gilded Age is where the term robber baron came from and in that time there were many who were considered to fit the definition: Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel), James J. Hill (Great Northern Railroad), Henry Ford (in later years), John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil), J.P. Morgan (Wall Street/Finance) etc were considered by many to fit the bill by exploiting workers and conditions for the purpose of profit. However I don't know enough about each person to say whether they were as terrible as some say they were or not. I do know that those who don't view them as robber barons have stated that the REAL robber barons where men who used government assistance to make their empires while these men did not. You see in some circles the real robber barons are called "political entrepreneurs" and these men are called "market entrepreneurs" the difference being government assistance. So I don't know how to properly judge their character.
I do know that they helped build America and changed industry in this nation in general, although I am unsure whether that was good or not. Depending of where you sit on the topic of industry and its effects on society, there are obvious positive effects such as cars, computers, mass transportation, etc but there are it's downsides too if one believes in global warming that could be one, the ruthless culture it created where people began attempting to imitate their success by less than respectable or responsible means among others. But this was the past hell some of it over 100 years old, what about today? Well today, with globalization things are undoubtedly much worse than any one of those men ever made it. Today there are sweatshops, government corruption and violence in every corner of the globe while chasing the almighty dollar.
If the real robber barons used government assistance, then we have almost nothing but robber barons today. Just about every corporation in the U.S. is subsidized by the government. This means the government gives them tax deductions or cash payments to keep them up and running. This is supposed to benefit both the corporation and the people of the community, whom the corporation hire in their shops and factories. Sounds fair enough right? Where does the "robber" come in? It seems equal, that is until you realize that government funds come from that same community. See the community pays taxes, the taxes are then sent to the corporation to pay rent on its private land so it can operate. So it seems that you pay your job to be there. In many cases, like recently, there are subsidies going to corporations that send jobs overseas. The corporation complains about government regulations (take government's money play by their rules right?) and they complain about unions (yet their subsidized by your tax dollars) so they blackmail the government to make things even better for them. That means more tax breaks, more subsidies, government help busting up unions, and lobbying to decrease funds for competition (here in Detroit the auto industry kept us from having a subway system similar to that of Chicago or New York). This is that pesky political entrepreneurship they speak of.
But it is not always government assistance, sometimes it is lack of government that makes a robber baron. I mentioned before about getting rid of unions and keeping corporations happy with tax cuts and subsidies but nothing makes them happier than cutting wages and avoiding labor laws. NAFTA was signed (under Bill Clinton) made trade with Canada and Mexico easier and in my opinion was the beginning of globalization. Corporations could now fold plants in Chicago and move them to Mexico or Canada where they can pay the workers much less and didn't have to deal with labor unions or labor laws. This led to blackmail of state and local governments to help corporations even more because now the citizens in these situations would have to surrender benefits, wages, family time, and in some cases the opportunity for legal actions (suing for injury etc) to keep their jobs. When a country has government mandated labor unions and labor laws (like the state of Michigan) it is difficult to compete against a country without those benefits. This is what I mean by the lack of government.
The lack of government also leads to sweatshop labor. Sweatshop labor is defined by The U.S. Dept of Labor as a factory or shop that violates 2 or more labor laws. Of course that definition only fits in America, it means nothing in say India or China where there are sweatshops. Sweatshops are good for business, low running costs, high production, lower cost for consumers, and better profit margins. Its a victory for all sides except the workers in the plant. In my research I have found about 7 businesses that use sweatshop labor: Target, K-Mart, Nike, Sears, Kohl's, J.C. Penny and of course Wal-Mart. The strange thing is Target, K-Mart and Wal-Mart are competitors who sell very similar products and looking at it from their perspective if they raise their costs by not using slave..I mean sweatshop labor then they would have to raise prices and could potentially lose business. Isn't that sad? Market share is more important than people. Well in any event these countries are to blame for the poor working conditions because their governments allow it. But it isn't all that foreign governments have allowed, some have allowed nearly complete destruction of their environment for corporate benefit.
The environment and the people of a nation mean nothing to corporations. Nigeria, the oil rich west African nation has been destroyed by the oil industry. The air, land, and water have all been polluted by Mobil Exxon (America's #1 oil corporation) and their oil drilling and occasional (but not uncommon) spilling. Here in the U.S. over the summer of 2010 we suffered an oil spill in the gulf (courtesy of British Petroleum's carelessness). The oil stretched for miles and polluted everything in its path. The citizens of the polluted areas were furious and rightfully so. However Nigeria had been having oil spills for 50 years prior to our one oil spill in 2010. Why is this happening? Well because Mobil Exxon has Nigeria's government in their pocket and although their citizens are furious too, there is nothing they can do about it. Of course one can never forget the conflict diamonds of Sierra Leone, Angola and the Congo where DeBeers made millions, excuse me, billions off of warlords mutiliating the people of those nations. Coca-Cola or "killer coke" as it is now being called, have been charged with sending paramilitary groups to kill union workers in Columbia, they have also been sued by citizens in India for stealing and polluting their water!
So when I think of robber barons or corporations who make money off exploitation, I don't think of Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel. I think of Nike, Mobil Exxon, GM and all the other 937 political gangsters that took bailout money and is not because I think the world of Carnagie and Rockefeller, it is because whatever they did during their time has to pale in comparison to what corporations do today. Corporations today don't care about the difference between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs only people looking to protect capitalism do. All they care about is money, and they will bribe the U.S. government, or the Nigerian government. They will blackmail, build sweatshops, and anything else that stands in their way because the bottom line is their bottom line.
The Gilded Age is where the term robber baron came from and in that time there were many who were considered to fit the definition: Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel), James J. Hill (Great Northern Railroad), Henry Ford (in later years), John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil), J.P. Morgan (Wall Street/Finance) etc were considered by many to fit the bill by exploiting workers and conditions for the purpose of profit. However I don't know enough about each person to say whether they were as terrible as some say they were or not. I do know that those who don't view them as robber barons have stated that the REAL robber barons where men who used government assistance to make their empires while these men did not. You see in some circles the real robber barons are called "political entrepreneurs" and these men are called "market entrepreneurs" the difference being government assistance. So I don't know how to properly judge their character.
I do know that they helped build America and changed industry in this nation in general, although I am unsure whether that was good or not. Depending of where you sit on the topic of industry and its effects on society, there are obvious positive effects such as cars, computers, mass transportation, etc but there are it's downsides too if one believes in global warming that could be one, the ruthless culture it created where people began attempting to imitate their success by less than respectable or responsible means among others. But this was the past hell some of it over 100 years old, what about today? Well today, with globalization things are undoubtedly much worse than any one of those men ever made it. Today there are sweatshops, government corruption and violence in every corner of the globe while chasing the almighty dollar.
If the real robber barons used government assistance, then we have almost nothing but robber barons today. Just about every corporation in the U.S. is subsidized by the government. This means the government gives them tax deductions or cash payments to keep them up and running. This is supposed to benefit both the corporation and the people of the community, whom the corporation hire in their shops and factories. Sounds fair enough right? Where does the "robber" come in? It seems equal, that is until you realize that government funds come from that same community. See the community pays taxes, the taxes are then sent to the corporation to pay rent on its private land so it can operate. So it seems that you pay your job to be there. In many cases, like recently, there are subsidies going to corporations that send jobs overseas. The corporation complains about government regulations (take government's money play by their rules right?) and they complain about unions (yet their subsidized by your tax dollars) so they blackmail the government to make things even better for them. That means more tax breaks, more subsidies, government help busting up unions, and lobbying to decrease funds for competition (here in Detroit the auto industry kept us from having a subway system similar to that of Chicago or New York). This is that pesky political entrepreneurship they speak of.
But it is not always government assistance, sometimes it is lack of government that makes a robber baron. I mentioned before about getting rid of unions and keeping corporations happy with tax cuts and subsidies but nothing makes them happier than cutting wages and avoiding labor laws. NAFTA was signed (under Bill Clinton) made trade with Canada and Mexico easier and in my opinion was the beginning of globalization. Corporations could now fold plants in Chicago and move them to Mexico or Canada where they can pay the workers much less and didn't have to deal with labor unions or labor laws. This led to blackmail of state and local governments to help corporations even more because now the citizens in these situations would have to surrender benefits, wages, family time, and in some cases the opportunity for legal actions (suing for injury etc) to keep their jobs. When a country has government mandated labor unions and labor laws (like the state of Michigan) it is difficult to compete against a country without those benefits. This is what I mean by the lack of government.
The lack of government also leads to sweatshop labor. Sweatshop labor is defined by The U.S. Dept of Labor as a factory or shop that violates 2 or more labor laws. Of course that definition only fits in America, it means nothing in say India or China where there are sweatshops. Sweatshops are good for business, low running costs, high production, lower cost for consumers, and better profit margins. Its a victory for all sides except the workers in the plant. In my research I have found about 7 businesses that use sweatshop labor: Target, K-Mart, Nike, Sears, Kohl's, J.C. Penny and of course Wal-Mart. The strange thing is Target, K-Mart and Wal-Mart are competitors who sell very similar products and looking at it from their perspective if they raise their costs by not using slave..I mean sweatshop labor then they would have to raise prices and could potentially lose business. Isn't that sad? Market share is more important than people. Well in any event these countries are to blame for the poor working conditions because their governments allow it. But it isn't all that foreign governments have allowed, some have allowed nearly complete destruction of their environment for corporate benefit.
The environment and the people of a nation mean nothing to corporations. Nigeria, the oil rich west African nation has been destroyed by the oil industry. The air, land, and water have all been polluted by Mobil Exxon (America's #1 oil corporation) and their oil drilling and occasional (but not uncommon) spilling. Here in the U.S. over the summer of 2010 we suffered an oil spill in the gulf (courtesy of British Petroleum's carelessness). The oil stretched for miles and polluted everything in its path. The citizens of the polluted areas were furious and rightfully so. However Nigeria had been having oil spills for 50 years prior to our one oil spill in 2010. Why is this happening? Well because Mobil Exxon has Nigeria's government in their pocket and although their citizens are furious too, there is nothing they can do about it. Of course one can never forget the conflict diamonds of Sierra Leone, Angola and the Congo where DeBeers made millions, excuse me, billions off of warlords mutiliating the people of those nations. Coca-Cola or "killer coke" as it is now being called, have been charged with sending paramilitary groups to kill union workers in Columbia, they have also been sued by citizens in India for stealing and polluting their water!
So when I think of robber barons or corporations who make money off exploitation, I don't think of Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel. I think of Nike, Mobil Exxon, GM and all the other 937 political gangsters that took bailout money and is not because I think the world of Carnagie and Rockefeller, it is because whatever they did during their time has to pale in comparison to what corporations do today. Corporations today don't care about the difference between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs only people looking to protect capitalism do. All they care about is money, and they will bribe the U.S. government, or the Nigerian government. They will blackmail, build sweatshops, and anything else that stands in their way because the bottom line is their bottom line.
Rappers: Faking It Til They're Making It
The hip hop culture is one often filled the message of debauchery, genocide, hedonism, and materialism. I love the culture and the music but that is the truth of the matter unfortunately. In any good rap song is one of the major components. It is either a song about sex, killing, hustling or money (not all but I'm talking commercial hip-hop right now). Right now I wish to discuss the materialism in hip-hop culture, simply because I feel as though it is the most widespread and the most visible. It is rather easy to ignore the imaginary murders rappers commit simply because the average gangsta rapper spits as though they are Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers and we know that not to be true. The sexual appetites of artists are personal and we only know very small amounts about that besides this is not a gossip column. Materialism is flooded in the media already, we know this, the Fortune 500 lists Jay-Z, Sean "sometime P-Diddy other times Puffy" Combs made or what have you. We see money not just in hip-hop but in other forms of media, and because it has seeped into the minds of the public at large it has also flooded the airwaves. Rappers have made it their business to let the world know of their success or coming success, but there are times where the rappers have unfortunately decided to fake said success. And that is the topic we are going to discuss today. There are far too many examples of artists going too far to push an image of success but I have chosen only three for this column because these are the most pervasive in the industry. Borrowing jewelry, cars and designer clothing for video shoots is commonplace, very commonplace and the most important when discussing the false lifestyle that artists portray in videos to the youth.
Getting busted with jewelry that doesn't belong to was once a big deal in hip-hop. It was a "dissable" offense (meaning you got dissed for wearing borrowed or fake jewelry) and perhaps it still is. One of my favorite artists Jadakiss got caught with jewelry that wasnt his. He borrowed the jewelry for a video he was doing with Mariah Carey back in 2004-2005. Now as I mentioned this is commonplace so there really isn't an issue of Jada being the broke ass rapper who can't afford the fly bling he wants to use for a video, alot of people (labels) do it. Jadakiss is not really a rapper that wears a lot of jewelry anyway, but it was $400,000 worth of jewelry, that is a pretty steep price but the image attached to having it is worth way more to people in the industry. Kiss was busted and he did get dissed by 50 Cent for it, but was it really worth it? Is the need to portray this image that necessary? For alot of rappers the answer is a resounding..yes.
Wearing jewelry that is not yours is one thing but wearing designer clothes the manufacturer doesn't even know exists is another. Rapper Rick Ross was busted sporting fake Louis Vuitton shades on the cover of XXL magazine. How did he get busted? Well once Ross wore those false shades on the cover it garnered a hell of alot of attention and requests for the shades came pouring into Louis Vuitton. Upon a quick search it was found that those sunglasses are not made by LV and that those particular frames were fake. A spokesperson from the company had this to say:
"...the sunglasses Mr. Ross is wearing were not made by Louis Vuitton and, in fact, are counterfeit. Louis Vuitton did not grant permission to Mr. Ross or to whoever did make the sunglasses to use our trademarks. The second is that no affiliation, sponsorship or association exists between Rick Ross or XXL and Louis Vuitton. The third is that counterfeiting is illegal."
To the rapper's defense a customizer nicknamed "The Sunglasses Pimp" stated he customized Ross' LV Millionaire shades and that tricking out sunglasses is the same as tricking out a car. I say that may be true but Ross was attempting to portray an image and that image is the "boss" character he has decided to play in the hip-hop game. Why do I say that? Well because an aforementioned "boss" Jay-Z debuted some authentic Louis Vuitton Millionaire shades on a different XXL magazine cover. Why the falsehood? Perhaps he wanted for people to believe he was on Jay-Z's level as far as money and power, unfortunately that turned out not to be the case a very embarrassing lesson learned.
We have just discessed rappers borrowing jewels for video shoots, wearing borrowed or fake clothing for photo shoots and those things are small compared to the most gaudy objects such as luxury cars. Neo-rap princess Nicki Minaj was driving a hot-pink Lamborghini for one of her music videos, the problem was the car wasn't hers and she damaged it by driving off-road.Strangely enough the damage she caused to the car was far more than it cost for her to rent the vehicle in the first place. Once again we see artists attempting to push an image of success and in doing so instead showed their lack thereof. To Nicki's defense it was her first solo video and maybe she didn't have the practice handling other people's property that some other artists do. What made me think of this case was recently, I saw a woman with a hot-pink corvette with the word "Barbie" (which is one of Nicki's gimmicks, even if it was ripped off from Lil Kim). And that got me to thinking about the cultural impact stunts like this have on people. Now it is impossible for me to know that the random woman painted her car pink because of Nicki Minaj, but I can say I never saw a hot-pink sports car until now and if I am wrong in saying one has something to do with the other so be it, but its a strong correlation.
Throughout the hip-hop industry we are blasted with imagery. Images of poverty stricken ghettoes, images of flashy husters, images of wild sex, images of lavish lifestyles including luxury cars and million dollar homes and the wise person realizes just how much of a facade most of it really is. Granted an argument can be made that the artist's record label is the ones paying for the fake jewelry and rented cars but some responsibility needs to be taken by the artists who indulge. I am sure it feels good to be able to drive a lambourgini but like my mama would say "if you ain't got lambourgini money keeps your ass out of it", amazing how simple a message that is right? However it is sad that the label and the artist feel that they need to portray these images of success and wealth to make an artist successful and wealthy. One can only hope that one day we can move past the small minded materialism we have as a nation, maybe then hip-hop can move past it too.
Getting busted with jewelry that doesn't belong to was once a big deal in hip-hop. It was a "dissable" offense (meaning you got dissed for wearing borrowed or fake jewelry) and perhaps it still is. One of my favorite artists Jadakiss got caught with jewelry that wasnt his. He borrowed the jewelry for a video he was doing with Mariah Carey back in 2004-2005. Now as I mentioned this is commonplace so there really isn't an issue of Jada being the broke ass rapper who can't afford the fly bling he wants to use for a video, alot of people (labels) do it. Jadakiss is not really a rapper that wears a lot of jewelry anyway, but it was $400,000 worth of jewelry, that is a pretty steep price but the image attached to having it is worth way more to people in the industry. Kiss was busted and he did get dissed by 50 Cent for it, but was it really worth it? Is the need to portray this image that necessary? For alot of rappers the answer is a resounding..yes.
Wearing jewelry that is not yours is one thing but wearing designer clothes the manufacturer doesn't even know exists is another. Rapper Rick Ross was busted sporting fake Louis Vuitton shades on the cover of XXL magazine. How did he get busted? Well once Ross wore those false shades on the cover it garnered a hell of alot of attention and requests for the shades came pouring into Louis Vuitton. Upon a quick search it was found that those sunglasses are not made by LV and that those particular frames were fake. A spokesperson from the company had this to say:
"...the sunglasses Mr. Ross is wearing were not made by Louis Vuitton and, in fact, are counterfeit. Louis Vuitton did not grant permission to Mr. Ross or to whoever did make the sunglasses to use our trademarks. The second is that no affiliation, sponsorship or association exists between Rick Ross or XXL and Louis Vuitton. The third is that counterfeiting is illegal."
To the rapper's defense a customizer nicknamed "The Sunglasses Pimp" stated he customized Ross' LV Millionaire shades and that tricking out sunglasses is the same as tricking out a car. I say that may be true but Ross was attempting to portray an image and that image is the "boss" character he has decided to play in the hip-hop game. Why do I say that? Well because an aforementioned "boss" Jay-Z debuted some authentic Louis Vuitton Millionaire shades on a different XXL magazine cover. Why the falsehood? Perhaps he wanted for people to believe he was on Jay-Z's level as far as money and power, unfortunately that turned out not to be the case a very embarrassing lesson learned.
We have just discessed rappers borrowing jewels for video shoots, wearing borrowed or fake clothing for photo shoots and those things are small compared to the most gaudy objects such as luxury cars. Neo-rap princess Nicki Minaj was driving a hot-pink Lamborghini for one of her music videos, the problem was the car wasn't hers and she damaged it by driving off-road.Strangely enough the damage she caused to the car was far more than it cost for her to rent the vehicle in the first place. Once again we see artists attempting to push an image of success and in doing so instead showed their lack thereof. To Nicki's defense it was her first solo video and maybe she didn't have the practice handling other people's property that some other artists do. What made me think of this case was recently, I saw a woman with a hot-pink corvette with the word "Barbie" (which is one of Nicki's gimmicks, even if it was ripped off from Lil Kim). And that got me to thinking about the cultural impact stunts like this have on people. Now it is impossible for me to know that the random woman painted her car pink because of Nicki Minaj, but I can say I never saw a hot-pink sports car until now and if I am wrong in saying one has something to do with the other so be it, but its a strong correlation.
Throughout the hip-hop industry we are blasted with imagery. Images of poverty stricken ghettoes, images of flashy husters, images of wild sex, images of lavish lifestyles including luxury cars and million dollar homes and the wise person realizes just how much of a facade most of it really is. Granted an argument can be made that the artist's record label is the ones paying for the fake jewelry and rented cars but some responsibility needs to be taken by the artists who indulge. I am sure it feels good to be able to drive a lambourgini but like my mama would say "if you ain't got lambourgini money keeps your ass out of it", amazing how simple a message that is right? However it is sad that the label and the artist feel that they need to portray these images of success and wealth to make an artist successful and wealthy. One can only hope that one day we can move past the small minded materialism we have as a nation, maybe then hip-hop can move past it too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
