A charismatic Democrat runs for the highest office of the land. Wait a minute! Enter: The rapper with a controversy-arousing tongue. What, is it '92 all over again? I refer of course to that odd moment which now resides in political infamy: the "Sister Souljah Moment". Maybe it was inevitable that hip hop music, an outspoken art form which was established as a means by which to give a voice to the voiceless, would have intertwined itself so tightly with political and social discourse in our country: Bill Clinton. Sister Souljah. C. Delores Tucker. Tupac Shakur. Dan Quayle. Kanye West. George Bush. Nas. Bill O'Reilly. N.W.A. Congress. And now we're in 2008, a year in which America might will elect it's first African American president. The hip hop community was bound to get involved somehow; for better or for worse.
Yesterday, a bevy of political blogs, tv and radio shows managed to pick-up on a new political track by Ludacris, a track which I had anticipated would cause an uproar. The song, "Politics (Obama is Here)", contained derogatory lyrics directed towards Hillary Clinton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, John McCain and George Bush. The track was played everywhere, by hosts on liberal Air America Radio, as well as by far-right Rush Limbaugh (among many others). As usual, the right-wing are united in their outcry, while left-wingers remain confused and hesitant. On the inside, many Democrats, liberals and other left-wingers understand and can appreciate some, if not all, of Ludacris' lyrics. Jokes about George Bush's intelligence (or lack thereof), for instance, have been a running joke during his painfully-long presidency. But on the other hand, we acknowledge the fact that given this race-torn country's history, controversial rap lyrics coming from one of Barack Obama's entertainment buddies may be harmful to his chances of winning.
Who is the intended audience for Ludacris' song?But there's a distinction that must be drawn here, a nuance that must been taken into consideration: Who is the intended audience for Ludacris' song? Surely, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have never bumped Incognegro in their ride (in fact, I shudder to even think of such an image). Our country's divide isn't any more evident than when we are under the presumption that we are only talking with our peers. Take for instance this thread from Stormfront, an online community for white nationalists: LINK. Granted, our First Amendment offers us the right to freedom of speech; and while I disagree with Stormfront's members, I can't help but stand back from their discussion(s) and hope that one day they will come to terms with their unfounded racism and put their animosity to rest. But if I'm willing to bite my tongue (no pun intended) so that others may spew their own inflammatory comments, where is the balance? Sure, a Stormfront member can call Barack Obama "Obongo" and refer to Michelle Obama as "Michelle Ma Belle"; but can Ludacris call Hillary Clinton a "bitch"? Oh no, absolutely not!
Can we put an anonymous Stormfront member on par with Ludacris though? No, absolutely not; Ludacris holds much more authority, purely on the basis of his exposure and ratings-power. The point however, is that these two individuals have each expressed their inner-most feelings, only intended to be read or heard by their peer group. The juxtaposition of Stormfront content (catered to mostly John McCain and/or right-wing voters) and Ludacris' lyrics (directed towards Obama-supporting/left-leaning people) effectively demonstrates a common sociological phenomenon best summed up in the following often-repeated quote: "The most divided time in America is Sunday morning during church services." Black churches. White churches. Division breeds even more division. Our true feelings come out only when we're among our peers, those which we are most comfortable around.
But how can we be unapologetically up-front about the ills of society while attempting to quell our divisions? Though he's rarely this controversial, Ludacris' recent lyrics reflect the former, while Barack Obama's optimism and "hope" embody the latter: breaking down our barriers. How can we merge the accusatory index finger of Malcolm X with the open arms of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as one? I wonder... At the end of the day though, we must remember that this "controversy" all boils down to a few words uttered by a rapper. Had the right-wing media not picked up on this story, white blue collar workers and soccer moms would have never heard of Ludacris' lyrics just as Don Imus' "nappy-headed ho" comment would have gone unnoticed by African Americans in their late teens and early twenties. Ludacris' lyrics, while controversy-baiting and downright hysterical, don't belong on the news; they certainly don't belong on news channels covering the election. Yes, the election: "it's bigger than hip hop."
Yesterday, a bevy of political blogs, tv and radio shows managed to pick-up on a new political track by Ludacris, a track which I had anticipated would cause an uproar. The song, "Politics (Obama is Here)", contained derogatory lyrics directed towards Hillary Clinton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, John McCain and George Bush. The track was played everywhere, by hosts on liberal Air America Radio, as well as by far-right Rush Limbaugh (among many others). As usual, the right-wing are united in their outcry, while left-wingers remain confused and hesitant. On the inside, many Democrats, liberals and other left-wingers understand and can appreciate some, if not all, of Ludacris' lyrics. Jokes about George Bush's intelligence (or lack thereof), for instance, have been a running joke during his painfully-long presidency. But on the other hand, we acknowledge the fact that given this race-torn country's history, controversial rap lyrics coming from one of Barack Obama's entertainment buddies may be harmful to his chances of winning.
Who is the intended audience for Ludacris' song?But there's a distinction that must be drawn here, a nuance that must been taken into consideration: Who is the intended audience for Ludacris' song? Surely, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have never bumped Incognegro in their ride (in fact, I shudder to even think of such an image). Our country's divide isn't any more evident than when we are under the presumption that we are only talking with our peers. Take for instance this thread from Stormfront, an online community for white nationalists: LINK. Granted, our First Amendment offers us the right to freedom of speech; and while I disagree with Stormfront's members, I can't help but stand back from their discussion(s) and hope that one day they will come to terms with their unfounded racism and put their animosity to rest. But if I'm willing to bite my tongue (no pun intended) so that others may spew their own inflammatory comments, where is the balance? Sure, a Stormfront member can call Barack Obama "Obongo" and refer to Michelle Obama as "Michelle Ma Belle"; but can Ludacris call Hillary Clinton a "bitch"? Oh no, absolutely not!
Can we put an anonymous Stormfront member on par with Ludacris though? No, absolutely not; Ludacris holds much more authority, purely on the basis of his exposure and ratings-power. The point however, is that these two individuals have each expressed their inner-most feelings, only intended to be read or heard by their peer group. The juxtaposition of Stormfront content (catered to mostly John McCain and/or right-wing voters) and Ludacris' lyrics (directed towards Obama-supporting/left-leaning people) effectively demonstrates a common sociological phenomenon best summed up in the following often-repeated quote: "The most divided time in America is Sunday morning during church services." Black churches. White churches. Division breeds even more division. Our true feelings come out only when we're among our peers, those which we are most comfortable around.
But how can we be unapologetically up-front about the ills of society while attempting to quell our divisions? Though he's rarely this controversial, Ludacris' recent lyrics reflect the former, while Barack Obama's optimism and "hope" embody the latter: breaking down our barriers. How can we merge the accusatory index finger of Malcolm X with the open arms of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as one? I wonder... At the end of the day though, we must remember that this "controversy" all boils down to a few words uttered by a rapper. Had the right-wing media not picked up on this story, white blue collar workers and soccer moms would have never heard of Ludacris' lyrics just as Don Imus' "nappy-headed ho" comment would have gone unnoticed by African Americans in their late teens and early twenties. Ludacris' lyrics, while controversy-baiting and downright hysterical, don't belong on the news; they certainly don't belong on news channels covering the election. Yes, the election: "it's bigger than hip hop."
