all the news that print will fit.
|
|
| notes from underground - societal whispers all the news that print will fit. |
|
|
Monday, January 13, 2003 np: yo la tengo - ..and then nothing turned itself inside-out thesis: whether they feel they are or not, and whether it was intentional or not, good charlotte's new single, "lifestyles of the rich and famous," has racist undertones. introduction: our society is constantly evolving. how we evolve is a question of the historical and societal forces that influence us. it could have once been said (and could still be, somewhat successfully, argued) that race was the major dividing force in america. now, i believe it to be a more class based divide, even though that has always (and will always in a free-market, capitalist society) exist. however, those who would claim the ghost of racism to have been given up would be jumping the gun. one need only to look at the pre-dominant roles of african-americans in american cinema to see how far we've progressed. aside from your few and far between examples (sidney potier, of late halle barry, spike lee, &c.) the overall role of african-americans have been as sidekicks, 'street wise fish out of water,' or other undermining roles. look no further than the upcoming steve martin film to see a perfect example. in it, he plays a stiff, unemotional white male who loses his wife and children only to gain them back through the help of a 'hip, street-wise, criminally charged (yet another stereotype) fish out of water' played by the otherwise talented queen latifah. queen latifah, who i just witnessed turn in an awesome performance in the excellent chicago as the warden of a womens' prison in 1920s chicago. definitely not the normal role for african-american women, especially in period pieces such as that. a passage that has always stuck with me, that perfectly sums up the troubles with race and class comes from dr. martin luther king jr.'s book, why we can't wait. "Yet another tactic was offered the Negro. He was encouraged to seek unity with the millions of disadvantaged whites of the South, whose basic need for social change paralleled his own. Theoretically, this proposal held a measure of logic, for it is undeniable that great masses of southern whites exist in conditions scarcely better than those which afflict the Negro. But the rationale of this theory wilted under the heat of fact. The need for immediate change was more urgently felt and more bitterly realized by the Negro than by the exploited white. As individuals, the whites could better their situation without the barrier that society places in front of a man whose racial identification by color is inescapable. Moreover, the under privileged southern whites saw the color that separated them from Negroes more clearly than they saw the circumstances that bound them together in mutual interest. Negroes were therefore forced to face the fact that, in the South, they must move without allies; and yet the coiled power of state force made such a prospect appear both futile and quixotic." why is it that this need was so "urgently felt" more by blacks in the south? The concept of race is the answer. yes, blacks had it far worse in jim crow south than poor whites did, but it was no picnic for the lower-class white either. their inability to share in common disadvantage and rally together for the betterment of both is a testament to the thick barrier that race had driven between whites and blacks of all class structures. it is this that leads me to believe that both race and class have been used to dis-advantage the lower-classes in american culture. the crux of my argument tonight is that those who argue that racism has 'disappeared' from our culture are simply missing the forest for the trees. racism (in minute, yet damaging forms) has become so ingrained in our society that we are no longer capable of picking up on it when it rears its face in society. the example i take to task tonight is good charlotte's song "lifestyles of the rich and famous." argument: the part of the song that is the most offensive to me is the second verse. for those of you unfamiliar with the song in general, let me give you a brief outline of its subject. the idea is, the rich and the famous, who live a life of luxury, complain too much about the conditions in which they live. they live in the lap of decadence and if they had to survive out on the street for one day, they couldn't do it. they are spoiled, in other words, by the plush existence they lead. the second verse brings up two examples of their target. "Did you know when you were famous You could kill your wife and there's no such thing as 25 to life as long as you've got the cash to pay for Cochran And did you know if you were caught and you were smoking crack McDonald's wouldn't even want to take you back You could always just run for mayor of D.C." My problems with this verse are three fold and we'll examine them in order: 'It's lazy songwriting.' - The two individuals to which they are referring, o.j. simpson and marion barry, are not new to ridicule. if anything, they are two of the most lampooned persons of the 90s. so is taking them to task really all that insightful of social commentary? no. it's safe to assume that if a person is being mocked on saturday night live, then their role as someone who can be successfully insulted in a way that carries social relevence...is over. and certainly a song written in 2002 which takes to task two individuals whose incidents occurred in the mid-90s at their most recent, is just plain silly. with all the other rancourous flesh occupying politics and sports (and other more important areas of society) today, why concentrate on those two? it seems good charlotte just wanted two people they wouldn't have to worry about getting questioned about attacking. surely, o.j. and marion barry are used to just ignoring such trash at this point. 'Their examples are two black men.' - There are several things wrong with their selection of individuals but their race, gender and particular situations are of utmost importance to the topic at hand. My first qualm is that black men are not representative of the 'rich' and 'famous' in american society. yes, rich and famous black men exist, and yes they are a sizeable minority in american popular culture, but they are by no means the rule. to use a minority as an example in the song is one thing, but when you select two minorities (of the same 'race') to make your point, and no other examples exist in the song, you're tredding on difficult ground. 'Not to mention their black men are criminals.' - Yes. america loves nothing more than a criminal minority. especially in high places. why? because it just goes and proves what we know already, right? if you're a minority, you're more likely to commit a crime. plain and simple. but why does america think that? is it just racism, or are there statistics to back that up? well, let's look at this: factually, the lower your socio-economic status (s.e.s.), the more likely you are to commit a crime. seems simple, right? the less you have, the more likely you are to do something illegal, for various reasons. access to healthcare, hunger, nutrition, etc. the list is long. now, while whites make up the majority of people with lower s.e.s., proportionally, there is a higher percentage of minorities within their ethnicity, that have lower s.e.s. than there are whites within their 'race.' so, statistically, because of s.e.s. and other social conditions, a minority is more likely to commit a crime in america than a caucasian. obviously though, that means that there's a large percentage of white citizens who are just as likely to commit a crime as the minorities, it's just that they make up a smaller percentage within their 'race,' and thusly, are exonerated in the media. ever wonder why all the people on cops who get busted look poor? it's cos it's not necessarily racial profiling we use in this country (although we do), it's class profiling. so does that mean that the wealthier you are, the less likely you are to break the law? not exactly. rather, it just changes the type of law you're more likely to break. notice that you don't see a lot of mulletted white men and minorities getting busted for white-collar crime. crime is crime..although in the sensationalized eye of the media...not so much. so when celebrities get busted for doing 'low-class' things like murder and drug abuse (cos we all know that rich people normally would never do drugs), it's news. even more so when it just goes to prove our old stereotypes about minorities. they're all the same, after all, right? wife-murdering o.j...who had the gall to marry a caucasian woman and be successful in society. in many ways, a self made man. and though people will say he was so guilty it hurt, the court found him innocent. and we have to go on that. marion barry, who was caught smoking crack. and we all know that crack is only smoked by the desperate, the loathesome teeming masses of poor. it was just indicative of his nature. summary: this has turned into a bit of a rant as opposed to an essay-esque piece of writing as i intended it, but i think i've made my problems with the song clear. they've picked as targets two minority men who are in no way typical or representative of the group they intend to attack. instead they took two, convienient, and most importantly, black examples and took them to task. piling on humilation where tons already existed. from a band whose very style screams that they're trying to be different and counter-cultural...they sure are on the bandwagon. cheers, guys. posted by J. Neas | 1/13/2003 05:28:00 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
