In some ways, hip-hop seems to be like the miracle tonics of yesteryear that could cure everything — or at least, that’s what the salesmen wanted you to believe. In reality, they could do nothing of the sort. In this case, the salesmen are not the rappers themselves, but the people who would argue that hip-hop has some transformative power; people who would convince us that if “our” musical genre could get itself together, it would become a clarion call for us to mobilize and defeat our racist foes. Ain’t gonna happen.

Number one, Hip-hop is a genre of music. Like rock. Or jazz. Or funk. Nobody is asking any other genre of music to save anybody. Nobody is suggesting that any other genre could. What’s more, even more than most other genres, there is no real sense of history intrinsic to hip-hop. I’m fairly sure that the recording companies treated it as if it were disposable right from the door, but anything that’s not making profit is disposable to the record companies. More disturbing is that it’s disposable to us. For most other genres, there is a certain level of respect for the acts within that genre that have come before. There are classic rock stations, whose whole format is dedicated to playing songs from across the decades. A jazz show is going to play almost as many songs from before 1965 as after. Hip-hop? There might be a lunch hour mix of songs from the last decade or so, but that’s about as far as it’s gonna go. Many younger listeners have no idea of the seminal voices of the genre because they’re old, and therefore, in the minds of the young, wack. If there are no elder statesmen of the form, then there is nobody to pull the lens from the immediacy of the me…and that’s assuming that the elder statesmen are even that aware themselves.

Thing is, being that hip-hop is a form of popular music, if it’s not popular, it’s nothing. Meaning this: I’m sure there are artists who are making exactly the type of music Mr. Scott is talking about. I’d lay a dollar to a donut that Chuck D himself has a song or two recorded. But they’re probably not gonna be on the air any time soon, unless Chuck plays them on his Air America show. (Is there still such a thing as Air America?)

The part about Mr. Scott’s piece that really killed me was this:

Perhaps ,most important, is the Hip Hop vernacular. Just as the Right Wing folks are able to use code words such as “illegals,” “inner city youth” and “states rights” to galvanize their base, rappers also have slang terms to mobilize their fans toward political action right under the noses of unsuspecting Republicans.

“Waka Flaka what?”

“Gosh darnit, Jim Bob. I can’t understand a thing that they’re saying!”

F’real, though? The demographics of who actually buys hip-hop records kinda defeat this argument before we can even get to critique the rest.

Album sales aside, as a form of popular entertainment, I maintain that hip-hop ain’t built for that. Is it possible for the artists to include some thought-provoking content in their lyrics? Absolutely. And I agree with Mr. Scott that they should, by all means necessary. However, as Mos Def said 10+ years ago, there’s no sense in talking about hip-hop as if it’s some giant living off in the woods. Hip-hop is the output of the people, so whatever the people are doing, that’s what hip-hop is gonna do.

Besides, if hip-hop could save us, I’d be more pressed to have it save us from our internal problems than whatever threats “they” pose.

Motor Booty Affair – Parliament – I’m not sure if this is my absolute favorite P-Funk album, although the side one stands up against just about any other side (or 5-song stretch in the CD era) I can think of. what’s more, the underwater theme of the album works both lyrically and sonically. The onomatopoetic value of this album cannot be faded. Can not. All that notwithstanding, it’s song number two that gets the album on the 25 most influential. Rumpofsteelskin puts this album over the top for one simple reason: the original tagline of this blog came from that song. “Livin and jivin and diggin the skin he’s in.” First time I heard that, I was like, “that’s me!” Am I Rumpofsteelskin? Probably not. But is my mode of existence “livin, jivin, and diggin the skin i’m in?” Pretty much.

Thriller – Michael Jackson – I don’t even need to talk about this one. Thriller is, while not the defining album of my life personally, one of the defining albums of my lifetime. From the end of 82 to 84 – especially in 84 – Mike wasn’t a star, he was a supernova. How brightly did he burn? Fried my brain enough to make me get a jheri curl. Fortunately, there are no pictures of that sad episode.

Raising Hell – Run-DMC. This is the album that dragged me into my first Side 1 vs. Side 2 debate, which is to say that it’s probably the official start of my life as an informal record-critic. Most people credit Raising Hell, and Walk This Way in particular, for raising the public perception of rap and hip-hop into a viable genre. That is, lots of people still thought it was a fad that would die out, but even the detractors had to admit that it was absolutely there at that time, at least. I’d heard the other Run-DMC albums, but Raising Hell was the first one I actually owned. Aaaand, it could probably be said that Proud To Be Black was the seed that germinated into Public Enemy’s whole steez. So to answer the question, I’m all about Side 2. I mean, Side 1 is bad. It has some of my favorite Run-DMC songs. Obviously, My Adidas belongs on my personal soundtrack, and Peter Piper is a sure-shot party banger. I’m a pretty big fan of Is It Live, too. But side two? What? My only problem with Side 2 is that I don’t know which I prefer: Raising Hell or Son of Byford/Proud to be Black. The guitar on Raising Hell probably wins, but Jay’s scratch at 2:39 of Proud To Be Black is one of the illest ever. (Yes I do A-B play that little segment.)

Amazing Grace – Aretha Franklin – As is the case with many albums that my mother used to listen to back in the day, I liked this album when I was little, but I didn’t fully appreciate its full value until I got older. When I was little, the only church songs I really, really liked were the get-down songs. So Old Landmark was, of course, my bar-none favorite. Coming in a close second was the 2nd half of God Will Take Care Of You. They was gettin down on that joint. But then, after I was older, one day I was listening to Mary Don’t You Weep on the mp3 player. That’s when I realized exactly exactly how much of a stooone singer (c) Rev. CL Franklin that Aretha really was. I almost had to sit down on the sidewalk. It was like, I knew that album, but I ain’t know that album.

Funky Good Time: The Anthology – The JB’s. By the time I got this album, I had started to enjoy hearing sample sources as much as I liked hearing the songs that had sampled them. This is the album that turned the tide. I had already liked James, but this set of mostly-instrumentals set my interest on fire. There were a few songs that siced it up, but the one that really pushed everything over the edge was Givin Up Food For Funk, Pts. 1 and 2. And really, it was Part 2 that did it. I’d heard GUFFF pt 1 on a Polydor compilation CD and thought it was cold-blooded. But when I heard part 2?! That was polyrhythm squared. It was like the whole song was a textbook example of polyrhythm, then Fred jumped on top of it with that trombone. It was ooooooover. Not like the lyrics didn’t matter at all, though. On I’m Paying Taxes, What Am I Buying there’s a skit/spoken word part at the end which kinda dramatizes the plot of the Black man in the South. At the verrrry end, there’s James kinda wistfully crooning, “…just Molly and meeeee…and baby makes threeee…” Then another voice comes in, “Didn’t you know Molly was a white woman, boy!” “Just Molly and y’all…I ain’t in it at alll..”

What I think would be interesting would be to look at the Black folks who voted for McCain, and why. Obviously, in the shots and locations I saw on RA:FW, there weren’t a whole lotta brothers and sisters. The one that was there was, I think, that Black confederate dude in Mississippi. Those types aren’t exactly the people I would be interested in seeing. Nor would I really care to see the hardcore party loyalists, necessarily. Some of them might as well be on the video as it is right now. Naw, I’m more interested in seeing somebody who could effectively articulate an understanding of Obama’s positions and why they voted against him, rather than some visceral reaction to him based on race, religion, or some nebulous fear of terrorism. Moreover, I’d be particularly interested in seeing some Black folks who voted for McCain who were willing to admit that they had to wrestle with the idea of not voting for a Black candidate for president. I don’t think that was everybody, but I’d be interested in hearing from those who did.

Another thing I found very interesting is how frequently the people in the video refer to themselves as “real Americans,” as if those of us who live in cities are fake. This is particularly relevant to me, because so-called “real” America is where I was born. Through the magic of Facebook, I’ve been able to reconnect with a lot of those friends, and I remember seeing some of their comments immediately following the election. I didn’t get into it with any of them, because it’s not worth it to me, but it was curious. I think that “real” Americans have just as distorted a view of what America is and is about as the people they think aren’t real. That is, their idea of America is based on the idea that everybody is like them. So when one of the dudes on the video talks about how Obama doesn’t really know real America because he was born in Hawaii and went to Harvard and lives in Chicago, I’m thinkin, what does dude know about America, really? Living one’s entire life in some small town, surrounded by people whose lives and beliefs are identical can’t give a person an impression of America. Yet, if you listen to some of the politicians and pundits, that’s exactly the implication they make. Like diversity ain’t real in America. Or like the people in cities don’t work hard. Or like welfare is something that goes only to people in the inner-city, and farm subsidies don’t count. Come on, now.

The good thing about looking at something through a fish-eye lens is that it helps you to notice things you may not have seen otherwise. But unless you recognize the kind of lens you’re seeing through, it’s harder to recognize the distortions.

While I understand that people are excited about the election and the pending inauguration of our first Black president, I’m not at all enthused about the commercialization and iconization that’s taking place. The way people are hawking things with his image, you’d think this was the biggest concert of all time, instead of an inauguration. In my little time out, I saw people selling the following items with Obama’s likeness:

- t-shirts
- buttons
- neckties
- hats
- belts (belts?!)

There’s some more in there I can’t remember, but I do remember thinking that the only thing I didn’t hear somebody hawking was draws. But I bet if I had asked, I probably could’ve found a pair or three of those too.

Now understand, I’m not really knocking anybody’s hustle. If there are people who will buy it, I guess it’s okay to sell it. But at the same time, I’m not sure this is an appropriate response to a political figure. Now maybe I’m just being a curmudgeon, but this all seems unhealthy. It just seems to be more appropriate for a celebrity than an actual leader. Now I can’t rule out the idea that we’re about to enter the age of the celebrity-leader, but even if we are, I hafta say that it’s an uncomfortable transition for me. Here’s why:

If this were a concert and Obama was everybody’s favorite artist, he’s be big as long as he sang songs the people liked. As soon as he stopped, he’d either fall off or he’d revert to having a niche audience. Thing is, he’s not a musical artist. As President, he’s not disposable like that. So the question I’m asking is what’s gonna happen when he makes a decision that all these people who are out there buying t-shirts and hats and buttons and whatnot are displeased with? I’m imagining that some of these are the same people who were having fits because he invited Rick Warren to do the invocation. What happens when he does something really unpopular, when his decision is more substantial than just somebody’s appearance in a program?

I realize that the election of the first Black president is a historical event. Being very honest about it, it’s something I never really expected to see in my lifetime. While I thought it was in the realm of possibility, I never thought it was very likely. But here we are. So I understand that people wanna celebrate and commemorate. I also understand that the era we’re in means that celebration and commemoration go hand-in-hand with iconography and commercialization. But that doesn’t mean I hafta participate, and it sure doesn’t mean I hafta like it.

On the one hand, I think it’s extremely important to make sure that all students are given work that they find stimulating. If Student A has demonstrated the capacity and proclivity to work at a different level than the majority of the students, the opportunities should be provided for them to do so. In a way, it’s just as important for there to be reasonable accommodations for students who are ahead of the curve as it is for those who need some sort of remediation.

At the same time, in certain school districts, the “gifted” label is almost more about politics than it is about the discovery of a particularly talented child. That is, some schools within a district may seem to have a disproportionate number of gifted students, which may point to, among other things, pressure from parents to have their children labeled.

The WAPO article also points out some of the more difficult aspects of gifted programs:

The gifted label is a hot potato in public education. A school that tells some students they have gifts risks dashing the academic dreams of everyone else. Any formula for identifying gifted children, no matter how sophisticated, can be condemned for those it leaves out.

I can testify to that. When I was in grade school, I got pegged for the gifted class. At the same time, there was a dude who I knew had me faded academically, and possibly intellectually, and he didn’t get in. Back then, especially, the thought that somebody might be smarter than me was completely foreign. I hardly believed that about most adults, let alone children my age. But dude? Yeah. He had me. But I was in and he wasn’t. I couldn’t figure it out to save my life. If I remember correctly, it was based on an IQ score or something, but I still believe that he would have done just as well in those classes as I did. Obviously, I don’t know any specifics, but my guess is that if it was based on an IQ test of some sort, he might’ve missed it by, like, a point or something. I mean, a threshold is a threshold, but in his case, it certainly seemed like they missed one.

But then, in addition to the limitations of the formula on an individual level, there are the problems with who gets labeled, writ large.

Montgomery officials say their formula for giftedness is flawed. Nearly three-quarters of students at Bannockburn Elementary School in Bethesda are labeled gifted, but only 13 percent at Watkins Mill Elementary in less-affluent Montgomery Village are, a curious disparity given that cognitive gifts are supposed to be evenly distributed.

This part is a little easier to explain, since the tests that would allow access to gifted classes are based on certain types of intelligence, usually vocabulary and logical. Just like the things they test on the SAT. We also know that in many cases, students who come from more affluent households tend to have certain advantages built in by lifestyle, like the fact that their parents speak to them more when the students are infants, and that there are usually more books present in the home. This could easily explain much of the disparity, particularly at the elementary level.

Overall, I’m not exactly sure how to feel about it. I know what it was like to be in the gifted program, and I know how proud it makes me that my daughter is in one, but aside from the pride, I don’t know that it would really make a tangible difference in her education, except that she may be exposed to some experiences she might otherwise not know. Losing the label probably wouldn’t hurt anything, but I’m not exactly sure what it helps.

I guess I’m really not that surprised that a good number of college graduates failed it, because most of the stuff I remembered from high school. I don’t remember too much history/civics from college. I’m sure I had to have taken some courses, but even then, the governmental stuff that I remember came from specialized courses. And really, while I think the assumption that college graduates as a group would know ‘X’ about the government is sortakinda valid, what people really pay attention to in college is what’s going on in their major. So if a person’s major didn’t really involve civics, there’s a good chance they didn’t really care what was going on in that class outside of getting enough info to pass the next test or write the next paper.

Having said that, some of the answers were fairly intuitive. Even I found myself lookin at some of the answers like, ‘how could somebody get this wrong?’

(Daps up: Cobb)

Having said that, cuz I can rightly anticipate that the question is gonna come, what I advocate for is the same thing that I always advocate for: at a political level, Black conservatives won’t get anywhere if they can’t connect with the people. Same thing on a personal level, actually, but even the people who agitate for community reform do so within the context of politics, because there’s not really another scale at which the actions of masses of people are discussed. (Well, maybe sociological, but intrinsic to politics is the idea that eventually some action will come out of the ideas; sociology is more descriptive than prescriptive.) A big part of that connection comes from doing and being where the people are. Don’t matter if you have the better idea if you can’t get the people to follow you — or even get the people to not follow anybody if they’re used to thinking they need somebody to follow.

This was a chance to edge a foot in the door. There’ll be others.

For the same reason that we don’t assume guilt with crimes, we should also not assume guilt with moral accusations that aren’t crimes. It’s basic human decency, and I find it sorely lacking among people who throw racism charges around without strong evidence. Being hesitant in particular cases when you don’t know for sure is not the same thing as denying that racism is real. No, it’s just being unsure about particular cases when you don’t know for sure. I can’t count how many times I’ve been accused of justifying racism when I’ve pointed out that a racism charge is unwarranted. Only if you don’t know the distinction between being true and being proved to be true can you make such a charge. You don’t need to deny that racism is real or even that it’s widespread and so deep-seated that it’s hard to spot in order to point out that a particular case is not clearly racist and thus unfair to call racist, and this will be true no matter how many such particular cases you find.

I’ve given a moral argument for my policy of giving people the benefit of the doubt in cases of potential but unestablished racism. I don’t think it should have to bring any negative racial effects as long as those who question racist accusations in particular cases are willing to acknowledge it when it’s clear and insist that there are probably plenty of cases of real racism where we unfortunately can’t be sure and thus be able to call them on it. My sense is that conservatives on race are sorely lacking in that sort of thing, and that’s why every attempt to follow a policy like mine gets seen as an attempt to justify actual racism. But I don’t see how that mistake on the part of people who follow a policy like mine can justify the accusation of trying to justify racism, as has been said about me many times in the comments at Racialicious whenever I’ve said that a charge of racism is going beyond what we can be sure of. But people prone to leap to racism charges without enough evidence are also prone to leap to racism-justifying charges without reason.

COS.

To add on to it a little bit, I still think there’s needs to be another term in there that can classify degrees of racism. Cuz even for people who think that every potential example of racism is the real thing, there still has to be an acknowledgment that they’re not all on the same level. And I’m specifically referring to verbal instances here. For instance, if the article Al Sharpton was complaining about earlier this week, where the author congratulated New York Giants coach Tom Coughlin for “tightening the noose” on Plaxico Burress, really does qualify as racism, that would hafta be a fairly low grade. Distinguishing degrees, I think, is fairly important because it would open up some possibilities for actually discussing.

It would never work, though, because most people aren’t really interesting in having racial discussions at that level. It’s too easy to leave it as a nebulous concept. It’s easy to throw, easy to block, and easy to choose sides. To really break it down, it would be necessary to dissect the term and see what’s what. And I agree with Jeremy that when intent can’t be determined, it’s better to give a person the benefit of the doubt. Cuz there are enough instances where the intent is clear to leave the questionable cases to the side.

What am I going to do with all that money?” he groans. Twenty-one years old, 60 million dollars this year, six-sevenths of what Ali earned in his entire ring career. He buys a Mercedes, a Jaguar, a Rolls-Royce, a Corvette, but a week later every one of them bores him. “Real freedom is having nothing,” he says. “I was freer when I didn’t have a cent. Do you know what I do sometimes? Put on a ski mask and dress in old clothes, go out on the streets and beg quarters.”

Maybe in some way, Tyson never really wanted the money. It was there, and it was a part of his reward for excelling at his chosen profession (or very possibly, the profession that chose him), but that’s probably not drew him in the first place.

The real tragedy is that, particularly early in his tenure as champion (which, frankly, only seems like it was long enough to have an early part), there was nobody Tyson trusted enough to let them check him. While there were obviously unscrupulous people around him, looking to take advantage of him at every opportunity, there had to have been some people who legitimately wanted what was best for him. Because there was so much money involved, it seems especially tragic, but on a less-noticeable scale, the same thing happens on a daily basis. Hourly, even. People are constantly making decisions without the benefit of knowing who they can really trust.

There are two challenges: 1) the person who’s giving the good advice has to be close enough to really make an impact, and 2) the person receiving the advice has to do more than know that it’s good advice, he actually has to follow it. Depending on the particular method, self-destruction can seem to be a lot more fun than self-preservation in the short run, so number two is actually the big one. When it comes to giving people advice on what they need to do, we hafta bear in mind that often times, the wrong choice long-term actually is enjoyable in the short term, but re-focus the attention onto the long-term goal. But in order to do that, you actually hafta get close enough to let the person know that you care.

Thinking about it from a broader and *gag* political perspective, particularly when it comes to Black folks and their political allegiances, this is what I see as the limitation to the approach a lot of Black conservatives take. It’s all well and good to be right (or Right, as the case may be), but if the question is how to take more Black folks in that direction, then the answer can’t be something based on technical veracity. Put it like this: the advantage that the Democrats have is not that they actually do anything for Black folks. You can look at the state of a lot of major cities that have Black mayors and majority-Black city councils and see that ain’t the case. It’s not about actually doing, it’s about the perception of caring. Somethin’ like, “Maybe they ain’t gon’ do nothin’ about it, but at least they’re concerned enough about my problems to know what they are.” Most Black conservatives – even the ones who are well-intentioned – tend to eschew that sort of sentiment. Thing is, 1) the people are used to it, and 2) there’s no trust factor. If the people trust you, in part because they believe you care, they’ll ride wherever you’re going. If they don’t, even if they agree with everything you’re saying, they’re only gonna go so far, and up to this point, the threshold has generally been short of the voting booth.

So basically, as I’m seeing it, Black conservatives writ large can complain about the fact that Black folks vote as a Democratic bloc all they want to, but until they change the style of their message, it’s not gonna get through, even if the people agree with the substance. Maybe somebody might argue that it shouldn’t be that way, that the only thing that should matter is stands on policy, but the reality is, if you’re suspicious of somebody, it doesn’t really matter what they have to say. Black conservatives and Repubs, if they’re ever gonna make any inroads, gotta geek down on that “BUT THEY AIN’T DOIN’ NOTHIN’ FOR YOU” and come in on some fairly quiet, “we’re here, we care, and we’re actually doing something.” Build a track record the people can trust, and then see what happens. One-two.

Here are mine:

title="Wordle: ill-t"> src="http://wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/168825/ill-t"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">

title="Wordle: ill-t lastfm"> src="http://wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/168831/ill-t_lastfm"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd">