Russell Simmons to Presidential candidates: I have a question - 1.29.2008.1

So here is something you don’t hear about every day. In fact it’s something you probably have not heard about at all.

Many celebrities, entertainers and notable figures in America are involved with the Presidential candidates. Most are endorsing this candidate or that one. Famously so far in this nomination cycle there has been Ted Kennedy, Jon Voight, Viggo Mortensen, Chuck Norris, Barbara Streisand, and of course Oprah Winfrey. That is just to name a few of those involved at the moment.

The various Presidential candidates love the attention that famous figures bring to their campaigns. Most of the time. There are exceptions, one of those being when they are getting questioned by the famous. Then it’s not something they want to get into so publicly. Just as often, it’s something they won’t respond to either.

Case in point is the fact that Russell Simmons, the equally famous brother of Rev. Run, currently known for his Run’s House cable television show and previously for Run-DMC the rap group. Mr. Simmons is a respected businessman, a mogul that launched his career with rap hip hop and has expanded from there. None question his acumen, nor his dedication to improve the lives of African Americans. He has long been a symbol of success, without the need to degrade women and exploit stereotypes as say Bob Johnson – creator of Black Entertainment Television – did.

Recently Mr. Simmons joined with Dr. Benjamin Chavis, and health and spirituality author Deepak Chopra in sending an open letter to the Presidential candidates.

“The questions included asking the candidates to discuss their thoughts on being inclusive of people who might not be part of the political mainstream, the importance of diversity, issues related to the environment, poverty, the war in Iraq, and how to move towards, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, a “beloved community” where all humans are treated with respect , justice and love.”

Considering the enormity of what the next President of the United States will be deciding, choosing paths that will determine the direction and presence of the nation for at least the next decade or longer, I commend their action.

I just hope they get a response.

Given the fame and success of these individuals, and the ability to influence and connect with the vast numbers of hip hop and rap fans of voting age, I would expect they will get a response. Except that this response has been pledged to be released, uneditied, to the public. Based on my own experience, that may not get a response.

Since 2006 I have been awaiting responses from several of the Presidential candidates. I have sent out letters and contacted the various campaign staffs, all to no avail. To date, not one candidate has responded to the letters I have sent out. I suspect that it is the fact that I will be releasing the answers, verbatim, for the public to view. While I reach Americans and international readers in over 60 nations besides virtually every state of the nation (including Alaska) and number my readers in the tens of thousands each month, the fear is that everyone will see their written responses, I suspect.

A written response is undeniable. It’s not like a speech or debate, where they are limited in the scope of their answer or can be misunderstood in the context of their answer. It does not provide the candidates wiggle room to say one thing and then flip that answer later. Plus in reaching the world, they will not be able to tailor the answer to a specific groups or local concern. Listen to how every candidate speaks about farming issues in Iowa; cars, unions, and industry in Michigan; religion and race relations in South Carolina; and you see that they often change the focus of how they sell themselves. And if you listen closely you will find that they at times contradict what they have said at different times in front of different groups. But a written answer does not allow for a forgetful mind or a short, overly simplified, ambiguous (non-)answer.

Thus I expect that while the fame and recognition of Russell Simmons far exceeds my own, he will receive the same response I have. None at all.

And that is an insult and shame.

The candidates hope to be the President of America. To be the leader of the nation. I understand that every question sent to them cannot be responded to. I understand that their staffers qualify who gets to be acknowledged based on their own biases. I can accept that my tens of thousands of readers may not be enough for the candidates’ radars (though it is more than enough to change the elections of 2004 and 2000 combined), or that the emphasis I have to Black and Hispanic/Latino issues is “too controversial”. But that is not true of entertainers.

Presidential candidates use entertainers and celebrities to buy votes. Their fame is the currency they use to convince voters of the worth of the candidate. But it is those same notable figures that have the ability to get answers individuals like myself are denied. And they should be able to have that reply and put it in the public view.

Barack may want my sister to vote for him, and will use Oprah to gain her attention and trust for that vote. But shouldn’t Oprah share, in writing if possible, the answers to questions of importance that Obama gave her to gain her trust and endorsement? Wouldn’t it be equally as compelling to know that the concerns of Oprah, or George Clooney, or Rick Schroder or whatever celebrity/entertainer are the same as ours and the answer that made them sure this was the right choice?

I think so. But to do so is to be honest and direct. 2 things that politicians are not known for, no matter who they are. But I hope to be proven wrong.

We will see if Russell Simmons gets his answer. I hope he does get one, and that it is shared with us all. It’s what should be done. But I won’t get my hopes up, no matter the fame, recognition and deserved success of the person asking the questions.

Does rap / Hip Hop sellout the Black Community? - 9.14.2007.1

Yes men. Uncle Toms. Sellouts. What do all these have in common? In the case of Hip-hop and rap music, the argument can be made that they all refer to the artists and entertainers that perform in this genre. Perhaps not all of them, nor all that they perform/produce but enough to be somewhat generalized.

Why might this be said? Well there are a couple of reasons. First there is the weakest reason, sometimes said as ‘I think you protest too much’. Basically the more defensive an individual is, especially when faced with a simple question, the guiltier they seem. How this might apply to gangsta rap (the near exclusive format of modern rap and hip-hop) would be in the responses various performers have made to the question of the lyrics used in their songs. A recent case in point is Ja Rule,

"And if it is, then we need to go step to Paramount, and f--king MGM, and all of these other motherf--kers that's making all of these movies and we need to go step to MTV and Viacom, and lets talk about all these f--king shows that they have on MTV that is promoting homosexuality, that my kids can't watch this sh-t," he continued. "Dating shows that's showing two guys or two girls in mid-afternoon. Let's talk about s--t like that! If that's not f--king up America, I don't know what is."

The defense seems to be, ‘It’s not my fault, blame someone else. They are worse.’ The protest ignores the question of what Ja Rule has done, and thus his responsibility, and tries to blame others. Now I agree that the media does have culpability. I’ve long said that executives are laughing as they go to the bank to deposit the money accumulated from the work of Ja Rule and other rappers. They are making boatloads of money (literally) for words they would never use in public (as Don Imus learned) by having rappers say it for them. And all it costs them are pennies paid out to the performers. That by definition sounds like a sell-out to me.

But that is not the only reasoning given by rappers and hip hop artists these days. There are also those, such as the ever quotable and ‘high’-ly educated Snoop Dogg and Fatman Scoop, who seek to redefine the terms they are using. Creating a lexicon much like the one used by Don King, they claim that they have redefined the meaning of words that have existed for decades and centuries before they were ever born.

In essence the argument made by Scoop was that the meaning of the words used by rappers and the youth of the nation today [I believe he means specifically African American youth but that is a guess] is separate of the meaning that has endured for centuries of use and is still maintained today.

If we were to follow this logic, the world-wide meaning of words are all incorrect, and their barely educated ‘I think it means this, and you are stupid if you disagree’ mindset is the only answer. Take Snoop Dogg’s definition of ho –

"It's a completely different scenario," said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [which announced Wednesday it would drop its simulcast of Imus' radio show] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha----as say we in the same league as him."

If his comment makes little sense I interpeted it as

But in looking at the comment made by Mr. Broadus I come to understand that he states that any Black woman that is not in or graduated from college, that is living in a predominantly African American neighborhood, that is not earning a middle class income is a ho. If these same African American (actually he does not limit this to only African Americans) women seek a successful Black man [though he does indicate their search is based solely on the economic status of the Black man] and have not achieved equal status on their own, then these women are ho’s.

Defending the livelihood of his superiors, the executives that run the record companies and pay him a portion of the money that his sales gererates, and following the path their corporate ad designers have laid out in the face of community disagreement likens itself to a Yes man to me.

In the cases I have pointed out, and many others, we see a systematic response. The medium that once held massive diversity (there were songs by Run-DMC out at the same time as Public Enemy, N.W.A., and Da La Soul) is focused on a highly destructive and profitable genre. A new crop of entertainers are ‘found’ and promoted heavily (read solely) in this format. When the genre is accused of inciting harm to the community it is targeted to, those same entertainers are used to defend it. What does that sound like to you?

I will not say that gangsta rap cannot be made. The First Amendment guarantees that. But I will say that the exclusion of any other stylesis wrong. I will say that those defending this music genre, denying any responsibility for what they have put out on the airwaves and how it will affect the children and community, are at the least short-sighted. They are making money off the backs of the community and that is wrong. Much like a drug dealer I see it as inflicting harm just to make some money for themselves and 10x as much for the big bosses. I feel its just not worth it.

Before Ja started talking out the left side of his mouth, he might have taken some time to come up with a better argument. Perhaps focusing on the film studios for the limited roles available to Black women, as in, why do Black female actors always end up playing roles of prostitutes, drug addicts, welfare mothers, etc?

Gays aren't the reason that many Black families live below the poverty line. Lesbians aren't the reason that our prisons are overflowing with young Black men and women. Can't blame gays for the senseless gang violence in the our neighborhoods that is and continues to take the lives of many Black men. And it's unfair to blame gays for the number of Blacks that are unemployed in America. Oh, and gays weren't the reason that in 2003, he punched a man in Toronto for shouting at him in a crowd because of the 50 Cent feud. Nor were they the reason that in 2004, police investigated whether a feud involving The Inc. led to fatal shooting outside a nightclub party hosted by Ja Rule. Now were they?

And I can’t lay all the blame on the entertainers. The harm being inflicted is partially their responsibility, but also that of the parents that allow their kids to be immersed in this cultural addiction. This auditory crack reaches children in part because, as Jasmyne Cannick correctly states:

Now if you ask me, that's what's contributing to bringing down Black America. Our kids are being taught from a young age, by the lyrics of rappers like Ja Rule and by parents who care more about bumpin' their song, than the effects that hearing those lyrics day after day have on their children.

Sellouts, Yes men, and Uncle Toms. Perhaps they are not the well spoken, well dressed, hard working people that are often persecuted by some in the Black community. Perhaps their individual voices are not the ones we should be concerned about but the ones that are promoted, televised in music videos, and propped up like minstrels before us.

This is what I think, what do you think?