September 17, 2007

Letter to Afro-American and Media leaders:

From Michael Diego

Dear ladies and gentlemen of the American Afro-American community:

Now that much of the dust has settled over the Don Imus debate and its instigated controversy of whether Imus’ statement was racist in relation to “similar” kinds of messages delivered by rap artists, maybe our society as a whole, can get to the business of giving that same controversy a more in-depth hearing?

The 15 minute debate that has not disappeared from consideration while animated maintained silence on some crucial issues that deserve to be communicated and discussed.

Yes, indeed, Don Imus made a racist and sexist statement about the Rutger’s female basketball team. He called them “nappy headed hos”. There is little serious debate on whether Imus acted in a manner racist, sexist, and with intent to degrade—it is pretty much fair judgment by fair-minded people.

Although it is relatively obvious what was Imus’ intent, there is no “mortal” judge who knows with a God-like certainty what are the motives and calculations of why people say what they say—which is why “motive” makes for good psychological warfare and propaganda.

However, some critics of the Imus incident went into all-out rage arguing that Don Imus’ retort: “What about rappers music?” was strictly another form of racism, as his question was “just” another way that “white” male TV dominated industry blames blacks for racism against blacks. Period. End of story according to this demand for a tunnel visioned inquiry. “How dare ‘he’ so respond when his own behavior is currently in real question!”

But, as much as many would like to deny it, Imus’ response: “What about rap music?” (irrespective of his motives) was, and still is, a legitimate question, because there is a whole attitude of psychology that underlies some of this music that deserves more social scrutiny.

“Real” liberals and people of integrity consider “all” relevant points of view fairly before they get too judgmental. People of integrity are not as quick to dismiss an idea simply because they do not like it or how it might feel—even if it comes from an obvious racist. Dogmatic certitude like there is only “one” way to interpret a debate is itself a red flag.

The point herein is that there is a double standard in this country between what is considered acceptable or tolerable behavior between blacks and whites that cannot be explained away by “multi-cultural” differences. In “some” ways it seems blacks get far more latitude—and in others less.

Therefore, even if Imus’ retort was an attempt to deflect blame from himself—his question: “What about rap artists music” was a legitimate point, which we do consider herein for our social purposes, because his response does not necessarily “shift” responsibility from his own attitudes and behaviors. Rather his question broadens this inquiry to related and “equally” relevant issues because we “all” live and operate within a larger social context.

Nevertheless, apologists in the music industry that represent rap and hip-hop musicians, as well as critics in general, were quick to “equally” get defensive. Remarks like: “Comparing Don Imus’ language with hip-hop artists’ poetic expression is misguided and inaccurate, and feeds into a mind-set that can be a catalyst for unwarranted, rampant censorship”. This statement by hip-hop mogul Russell Simons hardly bespeaks of a zero conflict of interest position or a mindset that exemplifies objectivity.

Because it is hard to believe that “poetic” expression is what offends many people about rap music—nor what has alienated enough people over the years? Could it not have to do with those artists’ attitudes, and the actual chosen words, and insinuations manifest, within their music and style that might raise criticism—as well as the environmental conditions of how it is played?

What if Imus had s same words as artistic response—would that have negated any right for others to protest or accuse him? Not likely. Poetic license is a phrase to explain irrational forays—not to cover-up obvious semantics. It should be noted that poets of any merit have considerable cognizance of both the denotative and connotative meaning of their words.

Or consider that if the genres of hip-hop or rap music had originated out of a primarily young and white demographic—do you think that this society would have taken as long before it really made some hay to attack some of the blatant attitudes therein with any intensity? The fact remains that there was plenty of blatant and brazen attitude in some of this kind of music; nevertheless, it took quite a while before Middle America had much to say about its “poetic” expression.

Meanwhile criticizing black culture, or any segment of black art, from a white perspective does not often come without counter attacks of “racism” from various quarters. And often enough those who help engage counter attacks in a knee-jerk fashion include other white people who claim to be “sensitive” liberals who think they are merely sticking up for the so-called “victims” of racism. However these same supposedly open-minded white liberals (as they imagine themselves) seem not to imagine anybody but white people as racist—just like plenty of minority people seem not to imagine others being much racist except white people.

Nevertheless, there has been plenty offensive in rap music—and not just the actual words or manners, but equally in the manifest attitudes and character behind the expression. Other writings have made the case of what is offensive in rap—so we can presume this true—even if others have made big liberal points rhapsodizing on its merits.

And granted the meaning of “offense” has subjective interpretation—nevertheless there are standards of communication and interaction that people will agree as to whether they seem hostile or friendly when extreme enough. So we take at face value a level of rudeness and crudeness even if it is equally true that this huge genre of rap the hip-hop has grown to include a wide variety of styles and nuances that also include music judged to have finesse and class.

When Imus’ defensive question reverberated around the media nation a war of ideas quickly transpired meant to “limit” the debate to him as sole culprit or spin-meister. For example, according to hip-hop activist Kevin Powell (cast member of MTV’s “The Real World” series) was recorded to say:

“ ... The mainstream media just happened to get on this topic now is because the people upset about Imus have “shifted” the blame to hip-hop ... Imus didn’t say what he said because of hip-hop, but because he is a racist, plain and simple. Hip-hop didn’t create racism and sexism, so this is really about two different conversations. And one of them is about the power-elite in this country turning a blind eye to their racism. That is what Don Imus represents. ...”
Kevin Powell

Obviously the timing and questionable motive of Imus’ “What about... ” was not viewed as anywhere close to an appropriate attitude. The mainstream media maintained this reactionary pseudo-liberal stand that “We will not consider his excuse”, in essence, signifying once again, that in many minds only “whitey” is racist of offensive enough to accuse of such—and that only whitey is inappropriate enough to focus when discussing racist attitudes. So again we as a society are left with and “end of conversation” that constantly focuses on blaming “white” people for all racism.

Never is there made any time to address potentially legitimate concerns or resentments from a white point of view that may have legitimacy. And this we call equality? So there is something about rap music as social attitude that should be addressed—because if this is really a community communication flows both ways—not just lecturing white people.

Since when does society need to protect rap artists from criticism? Is it unfair they be subject to evaluation—especially given the fact of how many “millions” of youth worship their work, or psyches, or style? The fact is that hip-hop may not have created racism or sexism but is this to imply the white man did? Furthermore hip-hop artists sure do a hell of a good job of exploiting racism and sexism—and is that not as important an issue—if not more important? So why are we so quick to close the curtain on this money making industry?

In fact one leftist radio-talking host went so far as to declare that the word “ho”, as in “nappy headed hos”, is ultimately derived from Anglo-Saxon etymology (word origin). But does her erudition thus prove that WASPish Teutons created such a word as “whore” so that it could latter be used as a racist slur? I mean it is not like some don’t have trouble pointing fingers at perceived WASPs as especially culpable? But according to her headlong sophistry and preaching on the radio for a few days you would think so.

The signification “ho” is black idiom to the “t”. Granted Imus, as aged adult, had no presumptive legitimacy to use this kind slang on his live broadcast, nor did his retort after his blunder work (as if he really did care), but the question “What about rap artists?” still begs for more social analysis.

It clearly seems, for some of us who have been around the block a few times, that we as a civilization, and as a media culture, for whatever reason, will “tolerate” more abusive language and emotional attitude from minority peoples, and especially black people (be it artistic expression or otherwise), than we are ready to tolerate, nor should necessarily tolerate, from white people, yet all we as a society seem to want to focus on is how intolerant are whites. Is there not a double standard?

How much loud, angry, threatening, and abusive behavior do people tolerate from white people in general? Or how much loud, angry and abusive behavior do blacks on average feel they should or need tolerate from whites? Your answer is not a hell of a lot. Yet there is usually this wide circumference acceptable if a black person feels free and self-righteous to go off half cocked on the smallest of reasons if he thinks it will help him get his way—which as often as not is for egocentric consideration. Nor is black the only member of the “rainbow” coalition that “presumes” self-righteous indignation to scream and make scenes.

If a black youth, or even an adult, act out in loud, angry, threatening and abusive manners, people are more likely to do nothing and think “... Well he is black—you can’t expect any better—that is just the way they are... Every time they don’t like something they blow up and make a big ugly scene and often threaten violence ... So we will just not address it because those people are crazy.” But hey no reverse racism or double standard here huh? Why would this lead to any resentment between races?

Think about it—reverse attitude of open hostility playing music goes back a while—before the genre of rap. It was a fear to challenge that “behavioral” choice of the black youth and his ghetto blaster walking around and “forcing” other people to be “dominated” by his music. Or maybe you saw the guy who saw one reading in the city park but decided to play his radio in that vicinity just to in essence harass the reader?

So here is a “real” issue about rap music—besides any issues of its content—it is that people “force” other people to listen to “their” choice of music that then becomes a form of aggression. They “transgress” their music on the consciousness of other people—irrespective of whether the other people want to be inundated with the music or not. This is clearly imposition if not harassment. And it bespeaks of a “general” attitude about respect and a cultural egotism. This is not just a tempest in a teapot.

This is why a lot of people “hate” rap or hip hop music (even if there are many who claim to like it), and this is why many are prejudiced against it—it is because the people who tend to play it do so “loudly” (be they black, white, Hispanic or whatever) without consideration of social context. They turn the volume way up and expect others to bear it (even if they themselves eventually become hearing disabled—and there is something irresponsible about the media not addressing the hearing damage at such “base” levels that lead to deafness for a life time).

Or they get attention as public spectacle with their car windows rolled down and music way up forcing it on other people while driving through neighborhoods, or parked in various places, etc. And this is in fact a “black” thing—that has spilled onto society in general—this bully brute mentality of the tough “hood” thinking himself bad while acting like a jerk.

Or maybe you remember how a gang of black youth would walk in the middle of the road in front of your car, loud music in hand, and then upon seeing you, deliberate walk slower as form of insult or confrontation or attempt to humiliate? And was this kind of interaction not interpretable as attitude of racism? Or was it just a black ego “thing” that needed to express a certain disrespect toward whitey or whoever happened to be in the car and actually had the right of way?

Since when should reasonable and conscientious people feel good or tolerant about such an ethno-centric mindset? To be tolerant is not to be willing to be abused—is it? Is that what these people expect? So why is this issue of style never addressed when discussing hatred of rap music or clash between races—that is this egotistical form of aggression?

There have been more news articles of a general nature on the behavior of intimidation and bullies on the school playground. SuEllen Fried wrote “Bullies, Targets & Witnesses: Helping Children Break the Pain Chain” arguing that more intimidation is played out at schools as kids grow up. Yes there is a transformation in this society that seems to say in general it is OK to be tough, and mean, and that such behavior is promoting of the “big” ego.

Therefore the rap music question is not just about style and content—it is also about manner and attitude. Because the attitude of the ghetto blaster to the car stereo, was, and still is: “F*** You” if you don’t like my loud music in sticking in your ear—I have no reason to consider your needs—or what are you going to do about it (deliberate and explicitly confrontation as gansta authoritarian)?”

But no hostility here mind you—no attitude or question of one’s behavioral choice. Rather according pseudo-liberals who are willing to address issues of respect from minorities, or the rainbow coalition, but who never seem to want to address anything that seems as legitimate attitude on the part of whitey—apparently he is innately inferior irrespective of his response? Their self-righteous reasoning is to “presume” prejudice against the man’s skin color! Yes according to their ill logic, whiteys’ gripes have nothing to do with any ethnic negritude or behavior engaged. Such prefabricated sanctimoniousness kills any discussion on the subject of “acting” black as OK—whatever that means—but apparently it means none of their behavior is to be addressed—like the occasional lowlife that talks to “his” girl or women (like he owns her) like some barbarian creep with his uncouth speech as public spectacle.

Meanwhile, consider how often over the years and decades did people blast you with soul, or jazz, or gospel music? Hardly never—and yet these genres were, and still are, predominately Afro-American music. Whereas the “attitude” of dominance and ego is found mostly in plenty of rap and hip-hop that contains anti-sociality—both in the words and in the attitude.

And get this—if black rap artists themselves were unwilling to discuss accusations of racism, or any glorification of violence or sexism in their music—most likely because they really did not have much of a defense—then there will still be others willing to advocate his “noble” place in the pantheon of art persona. There is always some college liberal ready to fight for his “abused” minority victim hood. And not least of all were some white women equally willing to view white men with much “more” suspicion of being racist and sexist than any men of color (who were apparently fanaticized always the eternal underdogs). But of course there are never any self-serving reasons on the part of these women as to why they harbored any kind of double standard.

And, if there is much truth to the recent insinuation, according to a woman calling in on a talk radio show, that industry “leaders” are demanding anti-social attitude in this kind of music (again to render the artists themselves as blameless) then we need to be asking why would this be so? Is it “just” a profit motive as some white suburban kids want to act tough and defiant—as this is how such attitude is thought?

This is to ask, “Why would the music industry deliberately help engineer or enhance a breakdown of respect toward other people as another manifestation of social anomie, like the ego-mania of boys that play macho men, but who really are reinforcing racist stereotypes that contribute to the notion that blacks are in general anti-social?”

Or does the prevalence of a one-sided guilt trip to whitey (middle and lower classes of white America seldom get a fair hearing or have opportunity to articulate grievance and re-gain in self-esteem or respect on issues) an effective form of a divide and conquer strategy meant to frustrate enmity between the classes and races so that the less affluent remain subject to other forms of social manipulation—such as the poorer classes being pushed into going to a war they do not really want to fight, while the well-to-do and NeoCons get rich off military investments? Because even though there are a lot of American minorities in Iraq and Afghanistan as soldiers, there are equally a lot of white males from the lower and middle class there as well—who have been manipulated against their better interests.

The point is that loud noise “dominates” a person nervous system. You cannot block out loud noise. It is like being psychologically arrested—it is forced on you. No longer can you exist in a state of psychological privacy as accosted. You can no longer think your own thoughts. Loud noise wipes out whatever was spiriting your psychological space. Therefore it is a form of aggression—especially when it is unwanted. And how many of these people ask others “Hey do you mind if I turn up my music?”

So “What about rap music” as question is not just about music—it is predominately about ethnic attitude—an attitude equivalent to the anti-social kid on the bus that refers to “homey” again and again while divulging a slew of expletives that are seldom delicate—and that go beyond the point of being hackneyed—while giving intuition of being a hateful person. Such a low-heel life of repeated posturing requires an aversion (or a compulsive kind of defense mechanism that inverts to a love for rap that goes against norms of respect or self-respect). So is there no projection or reaction formation here in this “love” of imitating the other group?

Furthermore it is a lie to say that rap music is not much of a reflection of black culture—it is very much a reflection of many within such a population and culture—given its prevalence. No it is not the complete picture of a culture—not by any means—as there are many individuals and individuality, as well as a long history of ancestral creativity. But what other race spends as much time and energy trying to “memorize” rap songs as a source of identity and supposed pride or standing?

And equally, is this context of attitude, not inclusive of another reality, as in a “personality” type that is attracted to such style of music—irrespective of race or color? You may notice a certain hostility, or aggressive henpeck ordering, of a certain anti-social personality, that likes loud and offensive noise and behavior—especially if it annoys and manipulates others?

Plus another thing worth noting is that those most prone to demand that “their” style of loud and aggressive music be played anywhere are the least inclined to give fair play to other types or genres of music. So how is this for the idea of equality or fair play? How many radio stations or nightclubs that pretend to cater to a multi-racial crowd really cater to a crowd that accepts this type of reverse racism (sure they play white women as artists—but they are not hosting the white man with any enthusiasm unless he has subordinated his style to wannabe to talk their talk, and “be” like they “be” in manner and attitude (so as to hide any middle class or suburban or country background).

This prison and gang mentality was reflective of a world of hatred, fear and chaos as constellation of bully.

By en large these people are not readers per se, nor do most find any interest in becoming intellectual. They are not nuancing fine points of philosophy or politics. They seem to have limited their scopes of intellectual discovery and articulation to repeating rap songs. Yet their swear words and rough attitudes become irritatingly and loose their “charm” rather fast (as the Latin root of ‘charm’ meant song—and it is not “charming” that one describes this music—is it?).

Think about it. What “real” woman of the world wants to be around a man who is of such character as to need to play dominant or vicious all the time? What real woman wants a man who eschews any and all types of intellectual endeavor? What real woman wants a man who, secretly out of fear—that is fear of being shunned as not a powerful male—is quick to get into fights or arguments to “prove” his toughness? How loveable can that truly be? Where are the classic virtues of courage, justice, prudence and temperance in this kind of psychology? How attractive and enchanting does that really get?

Furthermore, any kind of perceived misogyny really seems a form of self-hatred of not giving the self permission of becoming something beyond an authoritarian nature of a narrowly defined man. It maintains an inability to accept that any rejection from women takes into consideration more complex evaluations—such as overall temperament.

Here you have men who dominate as bullies, but deep down, too few have the competence to fix cars or the plumbing, or explain economic theory, or run a business competently, or read to self or children, or fill out their tax forms, or engage in a variety of conversations of which they have little familiarity, etc., and yet they delusionally and defensively think they are “special” just because their culture of rapster gansta worships toughness, drugs, crime, wealth, or an industrious or egotistical penis (and do not jump too readily as to deny there is no phallo-centricity in the minds of some). This is to say that one thinks one is a man simply because he can either dominate, gain illicit wealth, or that his wand is of such performing stature that many women must want his toy, and hence he can not understand why his limits of criteria of being an attractive male does not always play out to seem satisfying, or why he might still have an underlying attitude of hostility.

So are we going to collectively deny there is little in the way of egotism and self-glorifications in rap music—and in fact some gets obnoxiously egotistical with a constant reference to self? How does it reflect a mind of greater awareness beyond the self of group? But hey we should “all” appreciate an endless diet of such stuff, like the gal smacking her gum on the train knowing full well that it is irritating to others—yet somehow her small psychological self finds it entertaining as it draws some attention.

How does the act of memorizing the lyrics to mimic on bus deal with the real issues of life? How does it help focus on paying the bills? How does it empower the self to learn enough about law so as to turn the high ratios of prisoner incarceration in America into effective legislative reform? How does it raise political awareness (beyond clichés) so that listeners might perceive that right now the war on terrorism is really a war on third world countries that have oil or minerals and that the powers that be are deliberately creating a war between Christian and Muslim countries. Is this just escape? So what then is the role for the “macho” rapster to be—follow the piped piper into another war as “tough” hoods that will win the rich man’s booty?

Don Imus probably, as some have insinuated, did not listen to rap or hip-hop music much. Nevertheless rap is blasted at people on a regular basis on various media. In fact every time you move around the radio you hear this music. Therefore every person, save the most isolated, are familiar with the “vernacular” and “implicit” attitude. It is a cultural reality as Mexican food has so become.

And yet “another” conversation that our society should have, is the reverse racism of why there is such a “prevalence” of black rap or hip-hop music played on so many radio stations for youth and mainstream media in this culture, that has thence actively “discriminated” against other musicians including white musicians—as well as many artists of other ethnic groups who play other styles or genres of music. In fact some artists have had to change their style to sound like wannabes just to get attention or try to make some money.

Afro-Americans are not the only people who have something to say or express as form of creativity. Then why is there so much rejection of other types of personality and style by the music industry? And equally why is there so much pressure to give “excess” attention or fawning to a style that reflects the mentality of gangstas, expletives, authoritarianism, violence, hatred, sexism, criminality, egotism, pimpism, ignorance, etc. Why then has this “particular” Afro-American style, been pushed on mainstream culture so as the style to emulate (via the whole media culture—TV, radio, television, and movie houses). Is this not some insult to the integrity of traditional social values—at least the value of respect and social consideration? Nor was it just WASPs, as white men, as some “imply”, who are making the decisions for media and entertainment industries. Somehow it is easy to portray the red state redneck of cowboy as thee racist simpleton—while the city slicker is too urbane for any prejudicial manipulation.

Note too that several critics have been quick to point out that it is white teenagers from suburbia that are buying rap music. True enough, but since when has it been ‘cool’ to be white, male, or suburban in America?

When born a white child in the United States—there is a constant life-time message that is pounded on you—that is if you are a white male, no matter what century you were born, you are blamed for genocide against Native Americans and the stealing their land. Automatically you are blamed for black slavery and racism. Automatically you are blamed for taking land from Mexicans. Automatically you are blamed for the industrial breakdown of the environment and almost all form of corporate exploitation. So despite any innocence you might actual have as an individual—like maybe you are not even born rich—in the minds of many pseudo-liberals or minorities or self-righteous feminists you are a jerk (and you should be begging for forgiveness the rest of his life and never is there any time or space for empathy for your vulnerabilities).

This is not to argue that the history or white men are not deserving of accusation and scrutiny. But why is it that white people, especially men are the ones holding the bag “all” the time? The presumption, in the minds of many, is that “white” people are the ones who are “thee” racists—and any other form of racism is merely miniscule—not really worth pondering.

Furthermore men in general are portrayed by the media and colleges as losers—delinquent daddies, drug problems, sexist pigs, homeless, criminals, sex offenders, loners, exploiters, etc. So if you are a child brought up in a single parent family how likely are you to esteem traditional maleness or fathers? As a child in a female household you are probably not going to be subjected to a lot of verbiage about exploitative women (but then women never have selfish motives). But you sure may learn to have doubts about being a man.

There are a lot of unruly children from intact, as well as broken families (many carrying grudges and resentments) looking for people to blame for their frustrations—across the spectrum of America. And why should they not be angry given the world they inherit and the mindsets and hypocrisies of this culture.

Then couple this with the fact that America is an anti-intellectual society (schools teach how to memorize and pass tests which is a sure method of alienating many potential readers). Then you have a cocktail for low self-esteem (that will include white naive youth from suburbia) that will emulate whatever media slicksters portray as cool or macho (or who gets attention by women).

Within this context of reverse sexism there has concurrently existed a media “worship” of inner black city hip as imitatively cool—irrespective of any true sophistication or form of awareness of social diplomacy. Strike a pose as being prison bait or druggie—while the elite sharks figure out how to bilk the ignorant on loans, mortgages, inflation, war profiteering, etc. In this Jerry Springer society attention goes to the trashy and the least elite with a created market for the garish and wild. And there are also plenty of uneducated and dysfunctional souls that still need some form of attention—but apparently it is OK form some to engage any style.

The fact is that rap artists have gone out of their way to be “different”. They have not much attempted to identify with whitey—rather whitey has had to reject much of the Standard English language to be like him as he deliberately created slang to be incoherent toward the norm. And while he deliberately acts rude or disrespectful, he still somehow expects to be accepted by the somewhat staid mainstream? Or his listeners cannot imagine how their walking over other people with limitation on soul will not engender bitter resentment? Is it too much to ask the white men also deserve some consideration or respect? It is not your “color” man—it is your attitude—please turn your fricken music down and have some consideration for others! Believe it or not your outlooks do “not” encompass the depth of possibility.

“Hypocrisy” means to “criti”size “less” so that some do not much get criticized. So now rap “artists” are, according to the powers that be (the media) misunderstood saints. Meanwhile middle class Americans just don’t have the multi-cultural sophistication to see how well rounded they really are (even if they are not really out their explaining their vision).

And a twist to the current debate is that if black people call another the n-word it is OK because within “their” culture it has different meaning—such as one of endearment! So therefore it is OK. And isn’t it ironic that some of us hear the derogatory epithet “nigger” much more often from blacks to blacks than we do from whites (like maybe a ratio of about 10 to 1)? But hey that is OK—because if a white man uses such a word—there is no question about his motive—it is always the worst. There is no shared language or understanding? There is no shared humanity? Why Afro-Americans use the term as a sign of complex nuance whereas whites as a sign of racist intent (with zero nuance). Simple enough. I guess so.

Yet the NAACP had doubts so they held a funeral this summer for the N-word. They at least got the message that it is not wise for black youth to throw a word around that has been a racial slur. But the NAACP needs to address a lot more than racial slurs—it needs to address “attitude”. The fact is that there is plenty of hateful attitude and aggressive behavior—it is not just racial slurs—it is an entire outlook and way of being. What is the point in trying to bury a word if there are people who encompass despicability as attitude as ego? People need to stop blaming skin color and start looking at personal choice and action.

How can a person be forced to like a mean or hate-filled person? You can not force people of one race or ethnicity to like people of another—especially with a double standard—or with some guilt trip like you will like me irrespective of how I act—or I will guilt-trip you to death. If you are a hateful person you are not going to be liked or respected—despite any or all rhetoric about racism. Beauty starts within the self that is not some easy achievement—it is a lifetime accomplishment—because it requires much resource and perspective—especially in a civilization like the U.S.

Nor will the banning of certain words or slurs cross over to the real work of dealing with outlook and levels of maturity? But if pseudo-liberals really don’t think minority people are capable of learning attitudes of respect towards others (or themselves)—or don’t feel that they have any responsibility to be respectful—then by all means—blame whitey for black peoples’ choices—just like Imus blames outwardly.

Hence the idea that the music industry (typified by Russell Simmons) has begrudgingly agreed to ban words like bitch, ho, and the n-word (what they call extreme words) for the broadcast “clean” radio versions suggests they have no real will or manly virtue or character to tell prison punk stars in this society (or themselves) to grow up.

And the pants hanging down the ass as conformity gesture is the same aping of the monkey fascist society that has been evolving that reinforces political authoritarianism on top with what is below in prison—as a monkey see as monkey do to see if the media can make a monkey out of you. Nevertheless even our cousin primates such as gorillas engage in social behavior of disapproval and approval sanctions regarding issues of respect and disrespect within the context of their own sophisticated communities.

Whether the industry financially profits on a particular artist or genre does not take away from personal responsibility as choice of words or content. So the allegation that white men are the ones profiteering from “gangsta” rap and therefore should be the ones blamed is equally racism.

In conclusion whoever said: “Music is a reflection of the soul” was right. No wonder some black men I’ve met want to hear more jazz, more blues, and more rock as well as gospel music—I guess it is not as obnoxious or redundant to them either? But equally these genres have soul—something, believe it or not, even some white people have.

Peace, Michael Diego
Not copyright protected. Meant to be shared or emailed.