In class we spoke about
the performance that slave, ex-slaves, and descendants of slaves assumed in
order to abide by Sambo image of the slavery era and the black inferiority era
of the early and mid-1900s. From class we gathered the Sambo image was that of
the happy, humble slave. Likely this happy, humble slave was also dimwitted and
very entertaining. Hearing the description of the Sambo image sparked a
connection to discussions in my previous classes, concerning the theater that
was the minstrel shows as it relates to the image popular rappers portray in
today’s society; this parallel between pop-rappers and the minstrel Jeffery
Ogbar refers to as image of the “neo-minstrel” in his book Hip-Hop Revolution: The Culture and Politics of Rap.
The performances allow the Sambo and the “neo-minstrel”
to maintain their respective lifestyles. Where the Sambo image portrays the
image of black inferiority directly, the image of the pop-rapper as the
neo-minstrel implicitly depicts the image of black inferiority. Though these
men are able to lavish themselves in luxuries previously only enjoyed by whites,
the culture promoted through pop-rappers like Lil’ Wayne, inadvertently, or
quite possibly purposefully, promote images of black intellectual and aesthetic
inferiority.
In the thirty some odd
years since hip hop’s inception into mainstream media, there have been countless
complaints in the ways pop-rappers portray themselves and women with their
lyrics and in their videos. In class an explanation was given similar to, “If they
have to shuck and jive, grin and cheese to live a somewhat adequate life, so be
it.” If slaves behaved as Sambo’s to maintain a certain lifestyle what makes pop-rappers
any different. Hip Hop was created at the time of abandonment politics in the
inner city in New York. Early mainstream hip hop provided the image of happy, carefree,
blacks partying in the projects. Eventually the image evolved to the image of
the pop-rapper of today.
There is no existential difference between the
Sambo image and the pop-rapper, however, the desire of pop-rappers to maintain
a moral disconnect between their behavior during performance and the affect it
may have on the culture their performance claims to represent is ever-present.
Rapper’s hold no responsibility on the dampening of their performed image
Rapper Bun B made a statement at Rice College likening popular rappers to
employees, stating, “…the person behind the counter, they’re not obligated to
tell you how bad McDonald’s is for you, their only obligation at work is to
sell you McDonald’s.” The principal difference between the Sambo image and that
of the rowdy pop-rapper, the neo-minstrel, is not that one image demeans an
entire race more than the other. It’s the time in which the images were
constructed. Against what forces the images intended to work? Do pop-rapper’s
behave the way in which they do to appease an oppressor or purely because that’s
how they were taught to behave? Where was this profane, rowdy, misogynistic
image born and two whose benefit does the image work?
In my opinion, pop-rappers were not taught to behave in this profane, rowdy image. However, it is teaching the younger generation that it is okay to behave in such a manner. This image only enhances the White man's ideals that blacks are ignorant. After all, the pop-rappers are seen jumping around like wild animals. This image is a marketing strategy. The younger generation loves to see this type of behavior. To more mature individuals, we clearly see the ignorance prevalent in this image. It does not benefit the race of blacks, but it only enhances the amount of money going into their pocket.
ReplyDeleteI find this idea of the "neo-minstrel" to be very interesting. However, there are parts of this "performance" dynamic that I have a hard time understanding. I find it hard to believe the neo- minstrel is entirely detached from the role he is playing. I understand how the historical minstrel consciously acted in a certain way for a certain audience but I think that it might be a little more complicated when speaking about pop-rappers. It seems that there is a "pop-rapper" culture that is influencing this sort of behavior. Also, these minstrels have different audiences to perform for. Historically, the minstrel performed for white people--now the neo-minstrel/rapper performs for people of every race. As a whole society, we are affirming the behavior of these rappers by consuming their product. So, while this parallel is an interesting paradigm, we must remember the differences between the two contexts. Does Lil Wayne behave in the manner that he does consciously to entertain an audience? Or has his "character's role" become part of his actual identity? What does our cultural acceptance from every race say about this?
ReplyDeleteIn case you guys haven't seen this---
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3m3t_PxiUI
I find this idea of the "neo-minstrel" to be very interesting. However, there are parts of this "performance" dynamic that I have a hard time understanding. I find it hard to believe the neo- minstrel is entirely detached from the role he is playing. I understand how the historical minstrel consciously acted in a certain way for a certain audience but I think that it might be a little more complicated when speaking about pop-rappers. It seems that there is a "pop-rapper" culture that is influencing this sort of behavior. Also, these minstrels have different audiences to perform for. Historically, the minstrel performed for white people--now the neo-minstrel/rapper performs for people of every race. As a whole society, we are affirming the behavior of these rappers by consuming their product. So, while this parallel is an interesting paradigm, we must remember the differences between the two contexts. Does Lil Wayne behave in the manner that he does consciously to entertain an audience? Or has his "character's role" become part of his actual identity? What does our cultural acceptance from every race say about this?
ReplyDelete