http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301872.html?hpid=opinionsbox2Standing Up to Imus
By Colbert I. King
Saturday, April 14, 2007; Page A19
But Imus is not the only disturbing figure in this sickening story.
I heard callers to radio stations say that they failed to see the harm caused by Imus's slurs. Others said that even if Imus did go overboard, people on the receiving end of his insults should grow up and get over it.
Besides, as some Imus sympathizers said, his offensive language originated with black rap and hip-hop artists and is commonly heard in the inner city --
as if that absolves the 66-year-old broadcaster of marking the young collegians with a despicable label.----------------------
King makes a strong argument, and as his previous article shows, he didn't fall into the "If you attack Imus you have to attack rap" fallacy, so to me he still has credibility on the issue. And he doesn't use Imus to condemn the lyrics of the songs he quotes, he uses only the lyrics. It still doesn't convince me, though.
Rap is an art form, whether or not it always achieves the level we would like to think of as art. While the lyrics may offend, they are not a personal, direct attack on anyone. Collectively, they do degrade and dehumanize women, but they are, like all art, a reflection of a mindset, and a fantasy. Music and arts are always attacked--jazz, rock, even the Waltz. Not just music--the first reaction after VT by many journalists was to launch an attack on violent movies and blame them for the killings.
Art is an easy target because it often tries to challenge society's mores. Someone always objects, but that's the job of art. It is a reflection of the society that produces and that buys it. Criticizing art is like shooting the messenger. The message still remains, and without a messenger, it may remain unread. Lenny Bruce once said "If you take away my right to say "fuck," you take away my right to say "fuck the government."
None of that really destroys King's argument. He isn't, after all, calling for Hillary to censor anything. He is just asking her not to associate her name and her campaign with a producer and artist whose lyrics, King says, "praise violence, perpetuate racist stereotypes and demean black women." I wouldn't be heartbroken or feel that she had caved if she takes his message to heart. But I still wouldn't like it. While it's not censorship, it is criticism, and not just of an art form, but of an art form specifically associated with one segment of society--young African Americans. It seems to me that this further alienates that segment, makes them feel less connected to system they live in. That closes the dialogue. And it alienates. And it alienates largely along racial lines.
And, not everything Timbaland does carries that same message.
This reminds me of the other Clinton, and his surprise attack on Sista Soulja in 1992. I didn't like that, either. But it was popular with the white crowd and much of the older black crowd. It embarrassed Jesse Jackson, too, which made a lot of white people happy, while, as always, not being so horrible that it alienated the African American block. Because, as always, where would they go? So, it was a good political move. But I think it was a bad social move. I think the same thing would be true if Hillary repeated the gesture.
Just my thoughts. I feel like they are incomplete, but good grief, I've written too much already. Sorry, if anyone is still reading. :)