V cool.
& yes, encore, please.
Two capacious and gracious minds exploring differences and surprises. It sure can’t hurt, and is one of the best things bhtv can do for all of us.

I'm going to side with John on this one.
A few points: Black people are out of touch with what white people think about them. Partially this is because the average white person is not comfortable talking about race; we saw this in the reaction to Obama winning Iowa. This seemed to surprise the entire black community. It did not surprise me; it did not surprise a lot of white people. Identity plays a huge part in American politics and Obama being given the speech at DNC 2004 had everything to do with his skin color. It isn't as if there was even a 5% chance he would have spoken in that spot if he was white; there was a zero percent chance. This is what jump-started his political career. I recall several years ago, seeing Harold Ford Jr go on the Daily Show, and Jon Stewart talking about him semi-seriously as a future President. I saw the same thing happen a few years ago with Obama. AS far as I can tell Obama is filling a niche, a niche created by a subconscious desire by a certain section of the white populace to see

Fantastic. I was actually moved by this discussion, which for all Bloggingheads' wonderful qualities, generally isn't something experienced watching a diavlog. The discussion of hip-hop and art got to the heart of the matter and the personal expression/societal, moral, etc. aspects of art and hip-hop specifically, and the complete answer was contained in a combination of the two sides, which is always my favorite type of discussion. Ta-Nehisi's right in talking about art as expressing how we feel, and that hip-hop is more complex than simply a middle finger, and it shouldn't be held to a higher standard than middle finger punk, which certainly a lot of is far less complex, or even at all decent musically, than a lot of hip-hop is; and John's right that the middle finger expressed in rap is dangerous if people stop at that, or if the expression of anger makes people not want to try to improve their situation. This is a central paradox in a lot of art, as Ta-Nehisi says, about Kurt Cobain as much as hip-hop. A lot of it has to do with being young, and a lot of it has to do with

If the American Civil War promised rights and opportunities for the enslaved, it caused anxiety for the free persons of color. Under the French and Spanish, Louisiana was a three-tiered society, similar to that of Brazil, Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, and other French and Spanish colonies. This three-tiered society allowed for the emergence of a wealthy and educated group of mixed and black Creoles. Their identity as free people of color, or Gens de couleur libres or personne de couleur libre was one they had worked diligently towards and guarded with an iron fist. By law they enjoyed most of the same rights and privileges as whites. They could and often did challenge the law in court of law and won cases against whites (Hirsch; Brasseaux; Mills; Kein etc.). As they knew that the United States did not legally recognize a three-tiered society, they were threatened by the American Civil War. The potential of the end of slavery posed a considerable threat to the identity and position of the free people of color. Following the Union victory in the Civil War, the Louisiana three-tiered society was dismantled(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Creole_people). this aspect of the louisiana territories

Absolutely fantastic. This is an excellent counterpoint (from a generational standpoint) to John's diavlogs with Glenn. More please.

What a priviledge to be privy to such a conversation as this. And thank God and the internet for the blogging-heads format!

Agree with all the comments above praising the discussion; both Ta-Nehisi and John were excellent. Just wanted to say that, growing up as a white kid in Iowa and speaking only from personal experience, I know what John means when he says that it gives people a good feeling to support Obama. In high school, my friends and I would periodically debate whether or not Iowans were racist--whether we ourselves were racist. Some said yes, some no. I came to believe that the right answer was that Iowa was basically too white to know. There simply aren't enough people of color for you to know how you'll react towards people of different races in general. Now I certainly wanted to not feel like a racist, but I worried that I was one. When I moved away for college to a much more racially diverse part of the country, I wondered what I would discover about myself. After some months of college, I finally felt that I was able to say about myself that, to my great relief, I wasn't racist, at least not unusually so. Unlike John, I wasn't able to foresee that Obama would win Iowa, but I did know it was possible. In part because, as

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/146...5:30&out=15:37

Really good post. Thanks.

Hip Hop recommendations
Living Legends, Little Brother, MURS

Chris Rock said it best . . . " George Bush fucked up so bad that he made it hard for a white guy to run for President "

Quoting benjy: Of course this is hard to do when one community has been oppressing and discriminating against a minority and perpetrated terrible atrocities and injustices against it. There's no doubt about that as a fact of course, and whites should accept it and feel more contrition. But should's I think the operative word--a lot of things should be, but in reality probably won't reach the level that they should, even as they hopefully move incrementally in that direction. The fact of the matter seems to me that, as much as white people should care more about their historical and current culpability in racism, as John says, they don't, and they probably won't in the future think that much more about it.

interesting post, but I definitely disagree with the quote above. For me to feel "more contrition" for things that happened in the past and have no real connection to me would require that I have a highly developed race consciousness of "whiteness" that would be the obvious beginnings of racism. It is great that white people that have never been racist don't feel more contrition - it is a sign

Great diavlog. True mensches, both of them.

Quoting cantbelieveim50: Thank you so much, BHTV, for giving us an interesting debate after last night's boring disappointment of Joe and Sarah.

Ta-Nehisi and John, great job: I've watched every BHTV for over 2 years now and this is my first comment. You managed to disagree strongly with each other over while still listening to each other respectfully.

I was not dissapointed with the Joe and Sarah show, but that probably only means my expectations were met. You're just not going to get a reasonable, nuanced, discussion in pursuit of the truth in that setting. That's not what televised political debates are all about. Instead, you're going to get and endless repetition of "Maverick" and "Change" and "Bush, Bush, Bush, ....": all words that have tested well with focus groups I'm sure. I could not agree with you more about this BHTV post by Ta-Nehisi and John. What a wonderful world it is that I live in when I can come home on a Friday evening, after a long day at work, flip on my PC and listen in on such a fascinating dialog between two really smart guys who actually listen to each other. And who actually seem to want to understand what the

Quoting popcorn_karate: . It is great that white people that have never been racist don't feel more contrition - it is a sign that we are not having our emotions driven by race-consciousness.

If you were to make white people feel more contrition - how often would that then turn into resentment and then into actual racism?

Your point becomes especially cogent if Obama is elected. Should he fall short, the process begins again. I share John's oft-stated sentiment that the cultural shift will begin with the reality of the imagery of the Obama's rippling beyond the White House and into the media-scape and unconscious of the electorate and world beyond.

One thing that I wish these guys would have brought up is the possibility that music (all art actually) is a reflection of where people are at rather than directing where they are headed. The striking thing about rap/hip-hop was that it was the first musical outlet (that i'm aware of) where African Americans actually spoke their minds about the truths of the ghetto and the racism and oppression they have endured. Blues, mowtown, jazz, 70's disco, Stevie Wonder etc., none of them showed flat-out rage. None of them were "pugnacious." The great thing about early (gangsta) rap was that not only did it shine a light into the dreadful world of the black inner city, but it was the first time that Blacks were able to raise their fists in an artistic way that was accepted and bought into (literally through cd sales) by much of the public. While I agree that too much obsession on the negatives is not the most constructive outlook to hold, generally, I think the message to black children that it was okay to speak up and voice their criticisms is a valuable thing. Will

Quoting popeyethesailorman: I was not dissapointed with the Joe and Sarah show, but that probably only means my expectations were met. You're just not going to get a reasonable, nuanced, discussion in pursuit of the truth in that setting. That's not what televised political debates are all about. Instead, you're going to get and endless repetition of "Maverick" and "Change" and "Bush, Bush, Bush, ....": all words that have tested well with focus groups I'm sure.

Totally agree, and I will shamelessly use your post as a jumping off point to rant that if she calls me "Joe 6 pack", or my working mother wife a "soccer mom" one more time, when she made over 200k last year..... (expletive avoided). I am thinking that more than anything, this is the real nail in her coffin, driven by her own blind condescension, and by her own hand.
Oh wait, was she talking about my abs?

Quoting popeyethesailorman: I could not agree with you more about this BHTV post by Ta-Nehisi and John. What a wonderful world it is that I live in when I can come home on a Friday evening, after a long day at work, flip on my PC and listen in on such a fascinating dialog between two really smart

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: One thing that I wish these guys would have brought up is the possibility that music (all art actually) is a reflection of where people are at rather than directing where they are headed. The striking thing about rap/hip-hop was that it was the first musical outlet (that i'm aware of) where African Americans actually spoke their minds about the truths of the ghetto and the racism and oppression they have endured. Blues, mowtown, jazz, 70's disco, Stevie Wonder etc., none of them showed flat-out rage. None of them were "pugnacious."

I don't know much about this, but, what about Bob Marley and other Reggae? Not American, but popular, and a very effective delivery on racism and oppression...

Right on, I was also 14 when "It Takes a Nation of Millions" came out. I feel I am a person obsessed with all manner of pop music, and I'm sitting here trying to think of any general body of music that shares a time period and is beloved by young people that cannot be labeled as pugnacious. They all have their different flavors of pugnacity--metal, punk, hip-hop, Bob Dylan, Belle and Sebastian, Miles Davis, Ani Defranco--each one is for a group of kids, in a time, and each one carries at least a partial message that whoever is in charge doesn't understand us. Maybe the middle finger is straight up, maybe it's behind the back, maybe it's given simultaneously to the world and the mirror. I don't see why hip-hop would be qualitatively different. And there's plenty of hip-hop that's about getting stoned and watching cartoons, so I think Ta-Nehisi's argument re: Kurt Cobain, etc is correct. I get the impression Ta-Nehisi and John are not really talking about the same thing. I haven't read John's book, but I think his arrow is pointed at intellectuals who treat hip-hop like a unique artform. I agree with him about this, and will add that conducting academic

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: My guess is that, again, art is more reflective rather than directive.

If listening to Public Enemy causes a person (of any color) to open a book or read a blog or watch BHTV and become better informed, then that is just as good as being mobilized by Crime & Punishment.

Exactly. Why do the reflective aspects of hip-hop have to answer to greater accountability? For example, Public Enemy's Fight the Power impressed me in various ways. As a powerful backdrop for the opening credits of Spike lee's Do the Right Thing or as an underscore to Chuck D's fight against the recording industry's control of the artists product.
It seems a step too far for the artist to be held responsible for the effect on the audience. Regarding McWhorter's critique that its proponents claim that it is revolutionary while actually powerless in his estimation,
why not let it stand as a testament, not a prescription?

Quoting osmium: Indulgently, for a moment--I don't know what it's like to grow up black, in the 80s, in a city. But I do know what it's like to grow up alienated, in a small town, in the 80s. The first thing I got right when I needed it was Frank Zappa, and I even got to see him on TV getting grilled by Al Gore for having his middle finger stuck too high in the air. You take these things with you, because I'll always think Al Gore is a jerk, just for that. And there wasn't anything wrong with Frank. He was important. However, I agree, a department of Frank Zappa studies would be so totally pointless.

Zappa as a role model.
I beg to differ with your last sentence.

Quoting graz: I beg to differ with your last sentence.

Oh man, Frank is way too cool for a department.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: The striking thing about rap/hip-hop was that it was the first musical outlet (that i'm aware of) where African Americans actually spoke their minds about the truths of the ghetto and the racism and oppression they have endured. Blues, mowtown, jazz, 70's disco, Stevie Wonder etc., none of them showed flat-out rage. None of them were "pugnacious."

I'm trying to think of a good indicator of "pugnacious," but I admit I can't decide if pugnacity has to be aggressive or specifically violently aggressive. I think Curtis Mayfield had a good take on the black ghetto in the 1970s. He might have been angry, but maybe he was too civilized about it to out-do NWA. (But you know, time blunts pugnacity, because NWA doesn't sound quite as dangerous there as it did when I was a kid. Now it's like, aw it's NWA, them were the days.)

It's a shame that neither addressed gender issues in hip hop. My main gripe with hip hop is that so much of it is filled with misogynistic lyrics. In my opinion, hip hop would be superb if Outkast was the representative of hip hop rather than an outlier. Unfortunately, too much of hip hop glorifies pimping, bling, bitches and hos. I really don't mind the materialism and hyper-sexual aspect of hip hop (I love fashion, which is quite similar), but I don't see why there needs to be so much misogyny and homophobia in hip hop lyrics. As a female, I don't find it uplifting to hear men calling women "bitches & hos." Perhaps early hip hop was different (both guys are 30+ so they have a different image of hip hop), but contemporary hip hop has too much misogyny and homophobia for my taste. I dance to hip hop, but I prefer house/techno/trance -- no need for lyrics. McWhorter discounts 50 cent, yet 50 cent is far more representative of contemporary hip hop. I would love to hear two female African Americans discuss how the hyper-masculine culture in hip hop influences the black community, especially women and gay males. As for those

I'll second, no, third, no, ... seventeenth the praise for this diavlog. Do we really have to wait a whole month to hear this pair again? I am not a fan of hip-hop in general, but I found the discussion worked perfectly for me if I just thought in terms of my growing up with rock music. I think Ta-Nehisi was spot-on when he talked about (a form of) music offering an entry point for a young mind learning how to think. A minor difference: I would say "independently" rather than "critically;" I don't think I was really capable of critical thinking until my twenties, and by then, I had long since stopped caring about meaning in rock music lyrics. (Not saying my lateness in developing critical thinking skills is necessarily true for all teenagers, though.) As to John's point, or one of them anyway, my first and second instincts are to agree with the proposition that it gets a little silly when academics start treating some aspect of pop culture as a Very Serious Thing. However, the more I think about it, the more I'm uncomfortable with the notion that it's a complete waste of time. I think almost anyone would agree that there exist

Quoting laurelnyc: It's a shame that neither addressed gender issues in hip hop.

Good point. I'm going to guess that one reason they didn't is that the two of them feel it's so obvious it doesn't bear talking about, but it would have been nice to hear them say so out loud. The rest of your essay was very well said.

I don't think it's crazy to speculate that, were it possible to establish empirically, Obama's race on balance helped him. But it's not, as McWhorter characterizes it at one point, a fact. And I think Coates' argument is pretty sound there are plenty of other variables you could just as easily control for that would have even more explanatory power than race for how Obama won the nomination.

Quoting lowellfield: I don't think it's crazy to speculate that, were it possible to establish empirically, Obama's race on balance helped him. But it's not, as McWhorter characterizes it at one point, a fact. And I think Coates' argument is pretty sound there are plenty of other variables you could just as easily control for that would have even more explanatory power than race for how Obama won the nomination.

I pretty much agree. I think it's reasonable to opine that Obama's skin color got him more attention from the Democratic Party's overlords when they were planning the 2004 convention. On the other hand, we don't really have a control to compare against. There haven't been any (white) Democratic politicians recently who burst upon the national scene who had one 'steenth the big-stage charisma and oratorical skills that Obama had even back then. It's crazy for John to try to compare Edwards to Obama -- Edwards may be a nice guy, but he's dull and shallow-seeming to many, many people when he speaks. A better comparison might be Bill Clinton or Mario Cuomo -- both were unknown, nationally, when they got their speaking slots in 1988 and 1984. Clinton ran with

Terrific episode. I liked McWhorter's language book, and totally see where he's coming from on the black advancement angle. He's definitely arguing in good faith, but getting under the same roof with the likes of Victor Davis Hanson and Heather Mac Donald, that is just inexcusable. Coates hasn't been posting as much lately (he also writes features), but he became one of my favorite bloggers back in January or February. During the primaries he was indispensable. And we're the same age, we like the same bands, and we both played D&D, so I'll just come out and say it: he's my Colbertian black friend. On the rap deal I pretty much agree with both these guys. You can't argue with Coates's experience. I got into politics by watching the McLaughlin Group when I was 12. I can definitely say the McLaughlin Group is not good for anyone, and is certainly worse than Public Enemy, but for me it was an on-ramp to better things. Now when rappers rap about politics they usually make about as much sense as 9/11 truthers and Lyndon LaRouche. But political music is generally loopy. Even the sainted Billy Bragg will make me cringe

Quoting bjkeefe: Good point. I'm going to guess that one reason they didn't is that the two of them feel it's so obvious it doesn't bear talking about, but it would have been nice to hear them say so out loud.

The rest of your essay was very well said.

They did address gender when they were talking about Ms. Jackson.

The problem is in the definition of "racism." Ta-Nehesi, in his article on Ferraro, shows how (and why) no one who makes outrageous remarks about blacks nowadays, will ever see him or herself as racist. The crowning example mentioned by Ta-Nehesi is Michael Richards who actually ranted about "niggers" on videotape and was shocked and hurt to subsequently be described as racist. Ta-Nehesi argues that the bar for "racism" has been set so low that virtually everyone except Adolph Hitler can jump over it. But in the discussion John and Ta-Nehesi seem to overlook this definitional problem, even though the former is an expert in semantics and the latter wrote specifically about it. They talk past each other on the question of Ferraro, each with his own open-ended concept of what racism entails. If you reserve the "racist" label for people who truly hate blacks, then of course Ferraro doesn't qualify. If, however, you are willing to use it to describe anyone with prejudices and negative stereotypes influencing their judgments, then she surely does. Ta-Nehesi's overall point that Ferraro zeroed in on race as the explanation for Obama's success is obviously

Quoting claymisher: They did address gender when they were talking about Ms. Jackson.

I thought about noting that, but then I decided that laurel was speaking about the much more general (and typically more coarse) problem.

claymisher:

I haven't read McWhorter's book on rap, but can't imagine how it should be longer than about ten pages. He'd have been better off not condemning what he didn't like but instead highlighting the rap he does like. That would have won over more of the people who matter, you know, people who make and listen to hip hop, and not the cretins at the Manhattan Institute.

I dunno. If there's one thing I've learned from watching BH.tv, it's that you should never underestimate John McWhorter. You might have a look at the available excerpt from All About the Beat. I would also say that certain wingnut welfare recipients aside, the fact that John sticks with the Manhattan Institute makes me think it's not all bad. The program he mentioned in this diavlog (helping people released from prison, IIRC) certainly sounds worthwhile.

Coates is dead on about the awful music boys and young men make. Shitty metal, screamo, rape rock, the worst rap, it's all a soundtrack for aggression. I'm sure the aggression comes first and the music just follows. It doesn't make it any more defensible though.

I agree with this, but only in a Sturgeon's Law sense. I think

Coates talking about hip hop being insular and disconnected from the wider world reminded me of the crossover magic of Hey Ya! -- Andre 3000 wrote it when he was really into The Smiths! As for the "confrontational cadence" business, I couldn't agree more. I can't stand it. Drives me crazy. The aggression is bad enough, but the narcissism is too much, all that me me me. And the usual themes, you know, "the place to be, who you are, what you got, about a suck MC." The long mission statements on the theory and practice of hip hop. It gets old fast. I don't like music for bullies. I heard an interview with Robert Fuller, the rankism guy, and he totally won me over. It sounds corny and first, but he's really on to something. Anyway, as an aside, which I think is relevant to this episode, he told a story about teaching some black high schoolers (I think it might have been all boys) back in the 1960s (so leave hip hop out of it), and how hard it was to get the class to pay attention and get down to business. Eventually he figured out that the students had to expend most of their resources

Quoting laurelnyc: It's a shame that neither addressed gender issues in hip hop. My main gripe with hip hop is that so much of it is filled with misogynistic lyrics.

I would love to hear two female African Americans discuss how the hyper-masculine culture in hip hop influences the black community, especially women and gay males.

Thank you for pointing out this major problem that some of us have with this kind of music. I didn't have the time to comment on this, and I'm glad someone else picked this up. I do find the cult of this music seriously questionable when a significant part of it is filled with gender hatred. I don't even understand why this wasn't discussed in the diavlog extensively. I also find the level of aggression that it communicates well above other musical styles and certainly above my tolerance. I enjoy hard rock, and other styles that can be an outlet for anger and frustration, but rap/hip hop are too violent. When I add the gender stuff, it is a turn off. But this music is aimed to a younger crowd, so I can't comfortably opine. The only issue to seriously object

This bit about Obama being black and it helped him is highly speculative. I wouldn't want to argue yea or nay on it since it is an area I'm weak on. John says he has backers and detractors. I wonder if the former is less than the latter in the African American community. Perhaps, he meant supporters from all ethnic groups. His point of view resembles Thomas Sowell's and he has broad conservative backing. Since the overwhelming majority of blacks support the dems I would guess that the John McWhorters of the world have a larger white than black following. In Los Angeles on talk radio there is an African American host named Larry Elder and I would venture to say that at least 70% of his audience is white. He has been on the air for several years and I assume his ratings are decent. It goes without saying that this can lead to some calling black conservatives a number of derogatory names: sellout, bootlicker, and far worse. It doesn't seem to deter them in thinking and talking the way they do. I read John's "Losing the Race" and he took a

My knowledge of rap or hip hop is very limited. The only rap artist I have intentionally listened to (I'mn around it a lot) is NAS on a Miles Davis tribute CD "Evolution Of the Blues." I got the impression from my daughter that he is "old hat." John

Quoting Wonderment: The problem is in the definition of "racism."

I essentially agree with the thrust of your argument. What's key for me in determining whether Ferraro was being racist when she made her assertion is intent. John seems to think because she made her statement in the context of a political campaign it should not be read as racist. I respectfully disagree. I think it is precisely that context that makes it racist. While she probably believes it, Ferraro was practicing worst form of racial politics by singling out Obama race. It was an all too familiar nod and wink to those white people who suppress their irritation with affirmative action.

But isn't McWhorther's book specifically about the hip hop that isn't hyper-misognystic? (or hyper-violent, or hyper-materialistic, or, well, sadly, hyper-mainstream?) Rather, his beef is with the hip hop that thinking people call "good." The fact that mainstream hip hop is filled with repugnant lyrics is, well, obvious, and not the subject of John M.'s book. Very good diavlog.

I essentially agree with the thrust of your argument. What's key for me in determining whether Ferraro was being racist when she made her assertion is intent.

Well, now you've made it even harder to determine. Let's take some hypothetical examples: 1) Geraldine Jones who works for the Clinton campaign says that Obama would never have been nominated if he weren't black. But it turns out that Gerry Jones is a black woman. Is her intent "racist"? 2) Geraldine Smith says Obama is the most liberal voter in the Senate and devotes a year of her life to defeating him. She never makes a reference to race, but deep down inside she thinks blacks are disgusting and would never let one in her home. Racist intent? 3) Joe Biden compliments Obama for being clean and articulate. Sarah Palin says he "pals around with terrorists." Repubs run the Willie Horton ad. Intent? 4) A white Mississippi politician campaigns on ending affirmative action. Intent? The problem is that in a society with such a historical burden of racism, you can't avoid these issues, but you go crazy trying to figure out the subjective states that govern them. I think the

Quoting Wonderment: The problem is that in a society with such a historical burden of racism, you can't avoid these issues, but you go crazy trying to figure out the subjective states that govern them.

I think the best approach is to be aware that virtually everything in the USA has a racial component. You can look at that and struggle with it and change things without making judgments about what's racist and what isn't.

Interesting discussion. But I thought that you got it quite right in your previous post:

If you reserve the "racist" label for people who truly hate blacks, then of course Ferraro doesn't qualify. If, however, you are willing to use it to describe anyone with prejudices and negative stereotypes influencing their judgments, then she surely does.

Considering that we do live in a racist society, noticing race or talking about how race may have an effect on any social activity, as long as it doesn't contain a derogatory tone, doesn't seem to me as racism. I favor direct, honest communication and awareness of one's own biases. Political correctness has had the side effect of sending prejudice underground where it can't be

Just got done listening to this one, and I have to say, "Wow." This may be one of the top five diavlogs of all time. I really hope Ta Nehesi and John keep their promise to come back together often.

Quoting Wonderment: Well, now you've made it even harder to determine. Let's take some hypothetical examples:

1) Geraldine Jones who works for the Clinton campaign says that Obama would never have been nominated if he weren't black. But it turns out that Gerry Jones is a black woman. Is her intent "racist"?

Certainly Ms. Jones' race complicates the intent question. However, I would like to know a little more about the context of her comment. Her race doesn't automatically preclude the possibility of racist intent.

2) Geraldine Smith says Obama is the most liberal voter in the Senate and devotes a year of her life to defeating him. She never makes a reference to race, but deep down inside she thinks blacks are disgusting and would never let one in her home. Racist intent?

You've answer your own question. If we have good reason to believe that a person is racist toward blacks, and that person makes critical remarks about a black person, then it isn't unreasonable to infer a racist motive. However this is really conflating two different arguments. It is possible for a nonracist person to make racist remarks or fuel racist sentiments for

Can we just bracket the Ferraro business? It'll just go around in circles. It is what it is.

Quoting claymisher: Can we just bracket the Ferraro business? It'll just go around in circles. It is what it is.

Does it feel like this: ? Give a deep breath. It will pass.

Quoting claymisher: Can we just bracket the Ferraro business? It'll just go around in circles. It is what it is.

I suspect Wonder would agree with me when I say that the issue we're discussing is larger than Ferraro. If you're troubled by the larger issue then why bother commenting on this particular installment at all?

Nicholas Kristoff's timely column, "Racism without Racists" puts the lie to John's assertion that Obama's race is key to his success in this electoral cycle (granted, when Coates takes him to task John shifts the terms of his argument by restricting it to the early stages of the primary, which makes his claim no less invalid). According to the study that Kristoff cites, Obama would be ahead an additional 6 points if he were white. Take that, JW! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/op...ml?ref=opinion

I'm not sure how you "struggle with it and change things" without making judgments. It is seems like an oxymoron to me.

Well, I think awareness, sensitivity, empathy, self-examination are the kind of qualities that you bring to the table. Obama is quite good at this (Obama the writer, not Obama the politician). He's not judgmental; he doesn't call people racists, yet he understands the dynamics. Education is important. It helps to know something about US History. It helps to have read Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, Toni Morrison, James, Baldwin, Zora Neale Hurston, Langston Hughes, Alice Walker and scores of other African American writers. In decent high schools kids will have read a few important works by such writers by the time they graduate. So with a little effort you can have a sophisticated lens through which to understand the African American experience and participate in a culture that appreciates the challenges of the past, present and future.

Quoting Wonderment: Well, I think awareness, sensitivity, empathy, self-examination are the kind of qualities that you bring to the table. Obama is quite good at this (Obama the writer, not Obama the politician). He's not judgmental; he doesn't call people racists, yet he understands the dynamics.

Making judgments about racism and racist sentiments in society doesn't amount to calling people racists. That's not to trivialize the importance of calling people out when the occasion merits. Is Obama capable of doing this, calling people out? Is he too much a "bargainer" to make judgments about, for example, the appalling numbers of black men incarcerated?

Quoting laurelnyc: It's a shame that neither addressed gender issues in hip hop. My main gripe with hip hop is that so much of it is filled with misogynistic lyrics. In my opinion, hip hop would be superb if Outkast was the representative of hip hop rather than an outlier. Unfortunately, too much of hip hop glorifies pimping, bling, bitches and hos.

I am a feminist, but I couldn't disagree with this more. You do not want Outkast to be representative, because they are a meta take on Hip-Hop, not the genuine article. The older I get, the more I realize that art should never have misogyny = 0. That just doesn't work, and it's a bad standard to aspire to. Men and women mean well with their opinions of the opposite sex but most of those opinions are not naturally at zero misogyny/misandry. How can anyone make fun dance music without talking a little shit? Even if it's just a pose, there's a totally legitimate place for performers pantomiming their disdain for the opposite sex. If anything, I think it makes them more attractive.

Quoting DoctorMoney: I am a feminist, but I couldn't disagree with this more. You do not want Outkast to be representative, because they are a meta take on Hip-Hop, not the genuine article.

The older I get, the more I realize that art should never have misogyny = 0. That just doesn't work, and it's a bad standard to aspire to. Men and women mean well with their opinions of the opposite sex but most of those opinions are not naturally at zero misogyny/misandry. How can anyone make fun dance music without talking a little shit?

Even if it's just a pose, there's a totally legitimate place for performers pantomiming their disdain for the opposite sex. If anything, I think it makes them more attractive.

If I may, I think I get the gist of the comment and I may agree with it. However, the initial comment by laurelnyc wasn't about the more subtle gender-related play of the romantic game. It was about the gross mistreatment of women. The derogatory and violent content in some of this music can't be compared to what you describe. It's been discussed here that this diavlog intended to exclude the violent and misogynistic portion of this genre. It's

Quoting Ocean: . The derogatory and violent content in some of this music can't be compared to what you describe.

Not only is it fully comparable, I think it's a mistake to think that you can build a wall between the stuff you like and the stuff that turns you off. It's all of a piece. It's like praising an old-timey burlesque show while hating on lap dancing. Or talking about bodice-rippers as if they're wholly different than porn on DVD. In the end, your sense of class and politics informs your taste more than the actual merits of the art. It's all supposed to be a little bad. And then we begin the endless debate about what 'a little' really means to you.

Quoting DoctorMoney: [...]

I take your point about everything of this nature being a continuum upon which everyone draws lines at different places, but there gets to be a point that is so far to one end or the other that I think that the "all of a piece" argument gets a little specious. There's another part, too -- a difference that's not just a matter of degree but almost a binary state. Most of the examples you gave are "a little bad" only in the sense of being titillating. By contrast, references to women in too much of hip-hop music are downright disrespectful, or worse. So, it's not just a matter of being risqué, it's a matter of flat-out offensiveness.

Quoting bjkeefe: I take your point about everything of this nature being a continuum upon which everyone draws lines at different places, but there gets to be a point that is so far to one end or the other that I think that the "all of a piece" argument gets a little specious.

There's another part, too -- a difference that's not just a matter of degree but almost a binary state. Most of the examples you gave are "a little bad" only in the sense of being titillating. By contrast, references to women in too much of hip-hop music are downright disrespectful, or worse. So, it's not just a matter of being risqué, it's a matter of flat-out offensiveness.

I'm saying your ominous 'disrespectful, or worse' is still only 'a little bad'. It just depends on whose ears you're listening to it through.

Quoting DoctorMoney: I'm saying your ominous 'disrespectful, or worse' is still only 'a little bad'. It just depends on whose ears you're listening to it through.

Okay. If it doesn't bother you more than a little, I'm not going to insist that you're objectively wrong. I will repeat, however, that I don't think is just a matter of different tastes along a continuum.

Quoting DoctorMoney: I'm saying your ominous 'disrespectful, or worse' is still only 'a little bad'. It just depends on whose ears you're listening to it through.

"Whose ears" is key to understand this discussion. According to your idea, this musical style is meant to be for women at the end of the spectrum only. Perhaps the masochistic and submissive type would be turned on by a man openly insulting her and making intimadating gestures. I hope you understand that it would still be offensive to other women. Not everybody belongs to the SM/DS spectrum. And, of course, there has to be some caution and avoid getting carried away with this idea, or someone can end up thinking that a woman who is raped, for example, perhaps "asked for it". Why not? You can also put that in the spectrum. Just a little bad... isn't it?

I agree completely.

I agree. Very few whites today have committed any such atrocities or acts against their fellow Americans, and therefore won't ever be contrite about past injustices.

You know I think I agree with you--thanks for pointing that out. I wrote it pretty quickly and didn't give much thought to which word I picked there. This is probably too late for you to read it, but probably I should've said empathy. I mean we should as a society feel contrition for past and current injustices against blacks, but if white people only think of blacks in terms of feeling blamed for something they didn't do personally, that could lead to resentment. Of course we're dealing with shades of grey here, but I think you're right that solely contrition isn't right, so probably the balance should be more toward empathy for most people. Of course its still tricky, because when one generation commits a holocaust for example, its a little tough for the next one to say--"I didn't do it and I don't feel a bit of guilt" There has to be some more continuity than that, but also a distinction between people who do wrong things and those in subsequent generations...

[quote=laurelnyc;93019]It's a shame that neither addressed gender issues in hip hop. =======
Hi Laurel. Speaking about gender and class requires a willingness to do an intersectional analysis that many folks would rather not get involved with. I have been writing about Hip Hop and Gender for the last few months. Its hard. I love the music. I also have a gender critique. Peep Byron's new film, Barack and Curtis on hip hop, gender/masculinity. You may find it interesting.

Quoting Ocean: "Whose ears" is key to understand this discussion. According to your idea, this musical style is meant to be for women at the end of the spectrum only. Perhaps the masochistic and submissive type would be turned on by a man openly insulting her and making intimadating gestures. I hope you understand that it would still be offensive to other women. Not everybody belongs to the SM/DS spectrum.

And, of course, there has to be some caution and avoid getting carried away with this idea, or someone can end up thinking that a woman who is raped, for example, perhaps "asked for it". Why not? You can also put that in the spectrum. Just a little bad... isn't it?

I can only say that most of my female friends (especially my fiancee) are big fans of the kind of music you guys are talking about, and they take it as camp and sexual fantasy. The only thing I can think of that's offensive is to somehow assume that they're into SM/DS. They wouldn't be caught dead saying that it's offensive to women. It's a record. Hip hop is hyperbolic by nature. If your ears are too tinny to

Quoting DoctorMoney: I can only say that most of my female friends (especially my fiancee) are big fans of the kind of music you guys are talking about, and they take it as camp and sexual fantasy. The only thing I can think of that's offensive is to somehow assume that they're into SM/DS.

Saying that SM/DS is offensive can offend the SM/DS community...

They wouldn't be caught dead saying that it's offensive to women. It's a record. Hip hop is hyperbolic by nature. If your ears are too tinny to hear the irony, it's not the problem of 'the work', so to speak.

So my ears are too "tinny"?

But who knows, maybe you and BJ are truly talking about some nauseating stuff that I have never heard of. I kinda doubt it, though.

Perhaps, but I don't know what you listen to. The bottom line is that it's a mistake to think that everybody has to like the same, or that everybody finds the same kinds of things offensive. You know that. Tell a dirty joke in front of a group of people and you know that there will be different reactions. I may feel very comfortable talking about certain topics

My point was only that it is (in my opinion) offensive to assume you know anything about a person's sexuality based on what they like. It's overly personal and rude. If you think that women who aren't offended by hard, sexual lyrics are at the end of a spectrum, I vigorously disagree. I can enjoy a book with a rape scene without fantasizing about rape. I can enjoy a song with misogyny without being misogynistic. To say otherwise puts politics in front of art, which I think is a sad way of looking at it.

Quoting DoctorMoney: I can enjoy a book with a rape scene without fantasizing about rape. I can enjoy a song with misogyny without being misogynistic. To say otherwise puts politics in front of art, which I think is a sad way of looking at it.

The rape scenes in A Clockwork Orange (book or movie) or Last Exit to Brooklyn are harsh and not necessarily redeemable. Why do movies and books get the benefit of doubt that music (with graphic lyrics or imagery) does not? Is it because the art threshold has not been passed? This seems to raise the possibility of censorship or fear of words.
Even if the marketplace has validated the trend, I don't think that the influence is far-reaching or malign. But of course I'm not insensitive to the critique. I just don't accept the premise of the complaint. Where is the evidence that dirty lyrics or vile ideas has a negative impact?

Quoting DoctorMoney: My point was only that it is (in my opinion) offensive to assume you know anything about a person's sexuality based on what they like. It's overly personal and rude. If you think that women who aren't offended by hard, sexual lyrics are at the end of a spectrum, I vigorously disagree.

I can enjoy a book with a rape scene without fantasizing about rape. I can enjoy a song with misogyny without being misogynistic. To say otherwise puts politics in front of art, which I think is a sad way of looking at it.

This discussion has gotten twisted beyond the acceptable limit. The kinds of topics we're talking about are complex and I don't think this is a good format for that kind of discussion. Indeed people like or dislike lyrics or musical styles for a multiplicity of reasons and generalizing isn't appropriate. I don't know why you or your friends like hip-hop, and what's more important I don't have or want to know. I still think that some (not all) of the lyrics, are violent or derogatory towards women. And I object to that. You don't have to agree, you just have to accept it. You said

Quoting graz: The rape scenes in A Clockwork Orange (book or movie) or Last Exit to Brooklyn are harsh and not necessarily redeemable. Why do movies and books get the benefit of doubt that music (with graphic lyrics or imagery) does not? Is it because the art threshold has not been passed? This seems to raise the possibility of censorship or fear of words.
Even if the marketplace has validated the trend, I don't think that the influence is far-reaching or malign. But of course I'm not insensitive to the critique. I just don't accept the premise of the complaint. Where is the evidence that dirty lyrics or vile ideas has a negative impact?

Your comment should be directed to me, since I'm the one objecting to the violence against women in this kind of music. There are many aspects to what you're bringing up. You are talking about censorship or fear of words. Where did that come from? Do you equate disliking a certain kind of lyrics, that are offensive to some to censorship? When you talk about fear of words, how is this dislike, which you call fear, different from disliking racial comments or

I stated that I was sensitive to the complaints. I'm not asking you to listen to objectionable material. But I really doubt that you are regularly assaulted by this scourge.
Returning to the source, the diavlog didn't even address your concern. John's focus is on political impact. Just as he argued that it is highly unlikely for these lyrics to spark revolution, I suggest that the rude lyrics have no impact beyond offending the sensibilities of those that would otherwise avoid listening. I didn't mean to imply that the criticisms were tantamount to censorship. What I am hearing (reading) is that you are equating words (lyrics) to violence.
I think that's a stretch. Racial epithets? I don't see the connection. And the white noise of music being more powerful than movies or books, due to ambient influence vs. paying for a ticket or lending from a library, raises a question about how often or directly one is subject to this negative influence really. My guess is that you are opposed to what you glean more than from what you have been forced to hear. I agree that words matter. I would even concede that the words you caution against (not fear) are

I actually feel bad for being so testy, Ocean. You caught me on the wrong end of dumb day. The issue is a pet peeve of mine. And my bet is that you and I would probably like most of the same kinds of things anyway.

Quoting graz: Returning to the source, the diavlog didn't even address your concern.

Graz, that's the point that was made initially, that the diavlog didn't mention this, objectionable to some, aspect of this music.

John's focus is on political impact. Just as he argued that it is highly unlikely for these lyrics to spark revolution, I suggest that the rude lyrics have no impact beyond offending the sensibilities of those that would otherwise avoid listening.

Until my last post, the point was about those sensibilities, nothing else.

I didn't mean to imply that the criticisms were tantamount to censorship. What I am hearing (reading) is that you are equating words (lyrics) to violence.
I think that's a stretch. Racial epithets? I don't see the connection.

Have you heard about verbal aggression? What are racial epithets? I would say that a racial comment in a song, would be one that refers to individuals of a certain race with derogatory words. Substitute "individuals of a certain race" in the previous sentence for "women" and that's the connection.

And the white noise of music being more powerful than movies or books, due to ambient influence vs. paying for a ticket or lending from a library, raises a question about how often

Quoting DoctorMoney: I actually feel bad for being so testy, Ocean. You caught me on the wrong end of dumb day. The issue is a pet peeve of mine.

And my bet is that you and I would probably like most of the same kinds of things anyway.

Sure, we all have bad moments. As to your last statement, no comments.

Quoting Ocean: I think we must be talking about something different, because I can't believe that you would think that insulting women isn't as bad as insulting someone of a different race.

I wish to go on record, cd or mix-tape with my disavowal of preferring insults to women over race. Although I ask for some leeway to offend equally.
I know we are talking about similar things, yet not exactly the same.
Your clarification of position is unimpeachable, even if you have downgraded the effect of words to insult rather than violence. (How timely, given the Palin/McCain rallies).
Speaking for myself (and maybe D Money) - I don 't take those words at face value. Just as talk is often cheap, to give too much credit to the power of those words seems overblown. I gather you would not consider them constructive or informative. Or if so, then they must compel rejection by you?
This cannot be argued against. As to our difference, as infrequently as I hear it, I consider it role-playing, posturing or lying. Which poses no threat to me, my sisters (literally and...) or the greater good as far as I see it.

Quoting graz: I wish to go on record, cd or mix-tape with my disavowal of preferring insults to women over race. Although I ask for some leeway to offend equally.

Graz, you can have as much leeway as you want within the limits of the law. Just know there will be consequences of one kind or the other if you go around offending people. Your choice.

I know we are talking about similar things, yet not exactly the same.
Your clarification of position is unimpeachable, even if you have downgraded the effect of words to insult rather than violence. (How timely, given the Palin/McCain rallies).

That's a cheap comparison, Graz! Disappointing.

Speaking for myself (and maybe D Money) - I don 't take those words at face value. Just as talk is often cheap, to give too much credit to the power of those words seems overblown. I gather you would not consider them constructive or informative. Or if so, then they must compel rejection by you?

If "those words", again for the sake of clarity, refer to derogatory statements directed to women in an angry (substitute for "violent") tone, or a reference to any violent act towards women, I deeply object to them. The power of those words

Quoting Ocean: Graz, you can have as much leeway as you want within the limits of the law. Just know there will be consequences of one kind or the other if you go around offending people. Your choice.

I am not usually boorish or unsympathetic to requests for decorum. My goal isn't to defend offensiveness... just "artistic license" and free speech.

That's a cheap comparison, Graz! Disappointing.

I was rushed this morning. What I intended to flesh out was the difference between potentially inciting a riot (Palin/McCain) with words. And the zero chance that merely listening to a song inspires the same.

If "those words", again for the sake of clarity, refer to derogatory statements directed to women in an angry (substitute for "violent") tone, or a reference to any violent act towards women, I deeply object to them. The power of those words isn't overblown, it's verbal aggression. Either you believe that words can be objectionable when they contain aggression towards a group of people or you don't. If that group of people is, either historically or culturally, a vulnerable target for aggression, the more cautious one should be.

To belabor, they are words in a song, not a threat or an act of violence.

So, given

Quoting graz: I think our difference is in the assessment of the effect. I view it as cultural noise and a curiosity, not a threat. It could just as easily spark a positive outcome in a listener as otherwise. Most thinking people will find it somewhat offensive. And as it leads one to consider larger societal issues, perhaps some good can result from what seems like a mainstay of pop culture?

I do appreciate your effort to be sensitive to the other side of the discussion. In reviewing your comments and mine, I think that the main disagreement may be in this:

I am not usually boorish or unsympathetic to requests for decorum. My goal isn't to defend offensiveness... just "artistic license" and free speech.

Here you articulate a dilemma. You are well meaning and don't want to go around offending people. But at the same time you find it very important to maintain free speech and artistic license. Those two may be contradictory at times. I think that each person, artist in this case, has to resolve the dilemma in his/her way. Some will make their artistic expression such that isn't offensive, others will feel that they must say

Quoting Ocean: Free speech and free expression works both ways.

Artistic license and free speech will allow you to say what you think, but they don't protect you from criticism. The more offensive the content of your expression is the more intense the offense and the criticism will be. That's all there is to it.

Agreed. And sadly it seems that the heavy criticism of negative hip-hop hasn't hurt sales. I don't know what to make of that?

Quoting graz: Agreed. And sadly it seems that the heavy criticism of negative hip-hop hasn't hurt sales. I don't know what to make of that?

Are you trying to be funny? P.S.: I couldn't wait to use this one! Cheers, graz.

You guys are making my head spin. I'm gonna go listen to some gangsta rap and watch some porn ;-)!!

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: You guys are making my head spin. I'm gonna go listen to some gangsta rap and watch some porn ;-)!!

Have fun!

Great smilee's. You can't have gangsta rap and porn without some beer! I've been seriously considering jumping into the fray on your discussion for awhile, but I couldn't really think of anything new to say besides the fact that I love some art/music/movies that many people would find incredibly offensive due to violence, misogyny etc., despite the fact that those elements aren't a big part of my own personality (i'm relatively non-violent and pretty respectful to women.) So I don't know how much I think artistic taste has any connection to behavior. It never has seemed to for me. I listen to music that glorifies and even sometimes advocates violence, but I have no desire to be violent. I love misogynystic and sometimes sexist characters even though aside from the typical rock n' roll harem fantasy that most musicians dream of, I'm probably more of a one-woman kinda guy in reality. I like to listen to offensive stuff but if somebody told me they were offended i would turn it down or turn it off just out of respect for them. Anyways, I guess I don't have a point beyond the fact that this topic

The long discussion has to do with our desire that our likes and opinions be validated and shared by others. It just so happens that, that can't be always the case. When we encounter disagreement we want to convince the other person about all the good reasons why we think the way we do. It's natural to try to so so, but very often tiring and unsuccessful. At that point we have to come to terms with the fact that we are different and may look at the same issue from very different angles, and as long as we can't switch positions, so to speak, we will continue to disagree. And it's OK. Thank you for turning off that creepy music... In terms of the book, perhaps you can start a thread with a description of the book. I know you'd like that. Cheers! Psych Ocean

Apropos of nothing, except that all of this hip-hop talk depresses me and there can never be too many references to Tom Waits. (With apologies to Uncle Eb!)

Creepy music?? I am somewhat surprised that (with as much time as some of us spend here) how few threads there are on topics outside of politics and the diavlogs. Book reccomendations, movie reviews etc.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Creepy music??

I am somewhat surprised that (with as much time as some of us spend here) how few threads there are on topics outside of politics and the diavlogs. Book reccomendations, movie reviews etc.

Excellent point. I think it's a great idea to have someplace here to have this sort of discussion.

Quoting AemJeff: Apropos of nothing, except that all of this hip-hop talk depresses me and there can never be too many references to Tom Waits. (With apologies to Uncle Eb!)

Have a seat, Jeff. Would you like something to drink? Just kidding... and welcoming you to the conversation, although I'm afraid it's pretty much over.

Quoting Ocean: Have a seat, Jeff. Would you like something to drink?

Just kidding... and welcoming you to the conversation, although I'm afraid it's pretty much over.

I have little to say about hip-hop. There have occasionally been acts I had passing interest in, but I grew up with rock and roll and jazz - and I've never really wrapped my head around hip-hop in a meaningful way.

Quoting Ocean: Are you trying to be funny?

P.S.: I couldn't wait to use this one! Cheers, graz.

Cheers. Luv the smiley!

Have you ever seen this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUCuA...eature=related Most bizarre show ever. Really the first "reality show." Tom at his finest. Parts 1&2 are great as well.

Quoting AemJeff: Apropos of nothing, except that all of this hip-hop talk depresses me and there can never be too many references to Tom Waits. (With apologies to Uncle Eb!)

Here is a pre hip-hop rock rapper (feminist?).
I bet you are familiar Jeff - via Zappa? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_jZ_DgR8Yk

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Have you ever seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUCuA...eature=related

Most bizarre show ever. Really the first "reality show." Tom at his finest. Parts 1&2 are great as well.

Oh yeah. I'm a also a John Lurie/Lounge Lizards fan - "Fishing..." is seminal neo-dada TV (I'm spinning these terms as I write them) and a self-respecting geek like myself couldn't not own the DVD set. (And I do.) I think the best episode is with Jim Jarmusch.

Quoting graz: Here is a pre hip-hop rock rapper (feminist?).
I bet you are familiar Jeff - via Zappa?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_jZ_DgR8Yk

Guilty as charged. When I divested myself of most of my accumulated vinyl, my copy of Trout Mask Replica was one of the hardest things to let go of. I have, of course replaced it with a cd.

Via Matthew Yglesias: John opines, Ta-Nehisi responds. Just as nuanced as this diavlog was, although just enough heat in the comeback that I think we've got one segment of their next diavlog already planned. Good reads, in any case. Oh, and John has a new book coming out.

Wow, I gotta start reading TNC more often. I love McWhorter, but he got schooled.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Wow, I gotta start reading TNC more often. I love McWhorter, but he got schooled.

Yeah, Ta-Nehisi is well worth reading regularly. Did you see this one? And just to show it's not all essays, check out this one liner. (And in case you missed what he's talking about, see here and here.)

I was hoping I'd get some takers on my "maintenance of dignity" theme.

Quoting claymisher: I was hoping I'd get some takers on my "maintenance of dignity" theme.

I hadn't noticed the theme before. It sounds interesting, but I'm about to turn off my brain for tonight...

Quoting bjkeefe: Did you see this one?

Note TNC's observation about how much Obama looks like his grandfather. Then see this.

Quoting claymisher: ...he told a story about teaching some black high schoolers (I think it might have been all boys) back in the 1960s (so leave hip hop out of it), and how hard it was to get the class to pay attention and get down to business. Eventually he figured out that the students had to expend most of their resources maintaining their dignity by, well, fronting. The economist in me loves this analysis -- "maintenance of dignity". Dignity doesn't come for free. It costs some people more than others. Jocks get it for pretty close to free. Nerds don't. Poor kids, black kids, etc, you get the idea. Society is not distributing these cost curves fairly.

The cure for rankism isn't the self-esteem deal that turned out bad. People know when they're being patronized, and that saps their dignity. So you can't just say, "Stop fronting," and you can't just say, "Everybody's awesome!"

"Maintenance of dignity" seems to be necessary when the sense of dignity and the satisfaction that comes with it can't be built from 'inside' but instead has to be built in reference to external validation. So, how do you get others to say/ believe that you have

When "maintenance of dignity" is high-cost, I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that there isn't a whole lot else to __________. I can't think of the right word there -- it's some mixture of "compete over," "compete using," "concentrate on," "spend time and effort on," and probably some other things. Put another way: a familiar explanation for why kids/gangs in poor neighborhoods have always fought so strenuously to, say, control a specific corner is that they have little else to fight over. (Or to do, for that matter, but that's getting away from the point.) I'm not having much luck getting out the words that I want, so I'll just leave it at that for the moment.

Quoting bjkeefe: When "maintenance of dignity" is high-cost, I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that there isn't a whole lot else to __________.

I can't think of the right word there -- it's some mixture of "compete over," "compete using," "concentrate on," "spend time and effort on," and probably some other things.

Put another way: a familiar explanation for why kids/gangs in poor neighborhoods have always fought so strenuously to, say, control a specific corner is that they have little else to fight over. (Or to do, for that matter, but that's getting away from the point.)

I'm not having much luck getting out the words that I want, so I'll just leave it at that for the moment.

I will assume that you are talking about boys, although some of this may not be gender specific. Typically boys fight because they are practicing and testing their dominance skills. Competition, winning, prevailing. There is a continuum between the normative behavior of competition and the more extreme case of overt violence or gangs (except the Honorable Gang!). The key is whatever is going on at home. Many of these more troubled kids come from homes where there is

Quoting Ocean: I will assume that you are talking about boys, although some of this may not be gender specific.

Yes, that's what I was thinking about. I don't disagree with what you go on to say, but I was trying to keep the focus on "maintenance of dignity," and what you're talking about, while true, strays from the topic. On the other hand, I can't seem to clarify whatever thought I thought I had when I first clicked Reply, so maybe it's better if I just withdraw the initial suggestion.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, that's what I was thinking about.

I don't disagree with what you go on to say, but I was trying to keep the focus on "maintenance of dignity," and what you're talking about, while true, strays from the topic.

Ooops! You know, women, sort of wander around in their thinking process...

On the other hand, I can't seem to clarify whatever thought I thought I had when I first clicked Reply, so maybe it's better if I just withdraw the initial suggestion.

Leave it to your unconscious mind. Perhaps a dream will reveal the truth... Good night!

John, Some of the things you say about hip hop are true but there are hip hop albums out there that teach you about love and pain and speak to the soul. For example, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. I would love to hear your thoughts about that album.

Quoting kidneystones: check out the Palin look-a-like grinning at the reader with a large bible clasped between her legs and the story below.

Palin mannequin hanging from a noose.

Quoting mvantony: Palin mannequin hanging from a noose.

Let's have a little perspective, shall we?

Quoting mvantony: Palin mannequin hanging from a noose.

Israeli barbarians crushing an American citizen.

Quoting TwinSwords: Israeli barbarians crushing an American citizen.

I wasn't aware of the event, but the article you link to makes clear that the event may well have been an accident:

The events surrounding Corrie's death are disputed. ISM eyewitnesses assert that the Israeli soldier driving the bulldozer deliberately ran Corrie over twice while she was acting as a human shield to prevent the demolition of the home of Samir Nasrallah, a local pharmacist. The Israeli Government and the IDF denied that version of events and described Corrie's death as an accident. The official Israeli response stated that Corrie was killed by falling debris pushed over by the bulldozer whose driver did not see her, and that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition when Corrie blocked its path, while other reports say the Israeli government charged that the house being demolished contained a tunnel used for smuggling weapons from Egypt.

The major points of dispute are whether the bulldozer driver saw Corrie, and whether she died after being hit by the blade or by falling debris, or whether she was crushed under

Great post! It's beyond pathetic that so many well-meaning people think the Israeli military killed Rachel Corrie on purpose... or that the Israeli military are 'barbarians'. ... and like Hamas are just 'freedom-fighters'.

Somebody has to account for the political hiphop that does indeed attempt to be political and reconcile its inability to do what politics is supposed to do. My video response is here - on the late freight, I know. There's an entire problem with the notion that young people have to do with music what becomes entirely disposable as political capital in American society.

Quoting Cobb: Somebody has to account for the political hiphop that does indeed attempt to be political and reconcile its inability to do what politics is supposed to do. My video response is here - on the late freight, I know. There's an entire problem with the notion that young people have to do with music what becomes entirely disposable as political capital in American society.

Some interesting thoughts, Cobb. I wish you had written them here -- I find it hard to respond to a video monologue.

Quoting Cobb: Somebody has to account for the political hiphop that does indeed attempt to be political and reconcile its inability to do what politics is supposed to do.

Do you expect that this reconciliation is forthcoming? As you stated in your video response, the message is put out without any guarantee that the artists' intentions will be accepted or even addressed. It seems to be more than a busy two-way street, but there is no traffic guard. KRS1 and Chuck D have already spoken, their ideas have been consumed and digested, why do they have to account for the diffuse and debatable effect that their words and music engendered?
As you said, even if they had revolutionary ideas, it often elicited an emotional response - not an intellectual challenge. How can any artist lay claim to the exact meaning or purpose of "Fight the Power" when appropriated for the backdrop to the opening credits of Do the Right Thing?