Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Right Message, Wrong Messenger

There are some who will always have an albatross around their necks, and no matter how many good deeds they do, the smell of that dead bird will follow them into the grave. Think about Bill Buckner, and the easy grounder that rolled through his legs to cost the Red Sox Game Six of the ’86 World Series. Think about Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick tragedy (Google it, kids).

Think about the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Actually, a lot of people who were living in the Mid-Hudson Valley in the 1980’s don’t want to think about Al Sharpton. It’s hard to shake memories of the damage he did with the Tawana Brawley case. Sharpton, along with lawyers Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason, defended an African-American teenager who claimed a group of Dutchess County police officers sexually and racially attacked her. A year later Brawley admitted it was a hoax, which cost county residents hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and ruined the reputations of the accused officers, including then-assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones, who sued Sharpton for defamation and won.

The case, like many the reverend has become involved with, only served to deepen the racial divide, only served to hurt rather than heal, and only served to help Sharpton get more media attention.

I’m glad that he’s doing something positive with his new campaign to clean up the lyrics in hip-hop music (including collecting symbolic bars of soap), but from what I’ve seen of his actions, I can’t help but be skeptical.

Is Sharpton, given his past and his penchant for self-promotion, the right messenger for the task?

For instance, where was Sharpton when hip-hop jumped the tracks to the dark side in the early 90’s, going from energetic dance music to an in-your-face hand-grenade with lyrics glorifying shooting cops and rape? Was it not important to Sharpton then, to clean up the obscenities that were making their way into American pop culture?

Not then, apparently. Sharpton was spreading his own hate speech. In an address at Kean College in 1994, he said, “White folks was in caves while we was building empires ... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” (Yet he’s leading a grassroots campaign to eliminate homophobia in the black church.)

Was it not important to Sharpton when “Gangsta” rappers were shooting each other dead and flooding the cosmic atmosphere with language I will not repeat here? Apparently it was only serious enough for him merely to make the occasional statement on his web site, even though the media had bestowed celebrity status upon him and he could have had the ears of so many more who were in a position to do something about the problem.

Or perhaps he was too busy whipping up hatred between African Americans and Jews following the Crown Heights riots. And again, in the Freddie’s Fashion Mart case in Harlem, where the Jewish tenant of clothing store wanted to evict his African-American subtenant. Sharpton told the protesters, "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Following this speech, one of the protesters burned down the store, killing seven customers and himself. Yet Sharpton, while regretting the violence and his use of “white interloper,” claimed no responsibility for inflaming the protesters.

Meanwhile rap lyrics were weaving their tentacles into the minds of our children. I lived in uptown Kingston around that time, and it seemed that every day I’d hear young African-American boys calling each other the “n” word. Once I asked a couple of the boys why they called each other such denigrating names. One of the kids looked at me like I had two heads and simply said, “It’s a black thing.”

But it wasn’t just a “black thing.” White kids, too, were quickly adopting the language, the culture, the giant pants hanging below their underwear. The words they used were a noxious cloud so impervious that I was afraid that some day soon I’d open my online dictionary and find them there.

And when Sharpton called for Don Imus’s resignation after the morning shock jock uttered his infamous comments about the Rutgers women’s’ basketball team, he was accused by Jason Whitlock, a Kansas City Star journalist, of using the victims to further his own agenda of raising his profile in the media. Instead of drawing attention to himself, Whitlock wrote, Sharpton should have been doing everything he could to clean up the lyrics of hip-hop music that glorify indignities toward women.

Yet at the same time Sharpton was criticizing Imus, the reverend was on the agenda to give an award to Island Def Jam music group, a record label that boasts foul-mouthed rapper Ludacris as one of its artists. But realizing how bad this would look, Sharpton had the good sense to cancel. It makes me wonder: when Sharpton had already begun his “campaign” against hip-hop lyrics, why he was on the award agenda at all?

How can we look upon Sharpton as a leader in the fight against hip-hop music when he’s lauding the creators at the same time, and when he can’t even keep his own hate speak in check?

Perhaps Sharpton should take one of those iconic bars of soap he hopes to collect and use it to clean up his own act first. Then use the rest to wash away the smell of the albatross still hanging around his neck.

4 comments:

Unknown said...

Nicely thought-out perspective.

Nate said...

Of course, you do realise that since you are white, you are automatically a racist for criticising anyone of any color no matter how justified and accurate your criticism is? Which, of course, we both know is raving batshit insane, but then, so is the whole culture of over-sensitivity that enpowers such insane drivel.

Now me, I had my moments in the past where I teetered on the edge of racism. (Hard not to when it's rammed down your throat non-stop by the media.) But age has mellowed me in many ways, and I regard racism with the same jaundiced eye I turn toward nationalism. Much as I find it insane for anyone to derive pride from falling out of their mother onto a particular patch of real estate, the idea that they can take pride in the genetically predisposed amount of melanin in their skin simply defies all logic and sanity.

I think racism is bad. But I also think the definition of racism has been broadened so sweepingly that it now paints the innocent with its brush.

And that is largely due to the efforts of morons like Revs. Sharpton and Jackson, both self-aggrandizing hypocrites with not a lick of true faith between them. Of course they had a lot of help, some of it possibly well-intended, but most of it nothing but Washington's cynical nod to political expedience. The Demonicrats found that brush handy to paint their Money-grublican colleagues with to get a few votes, so they helped with the widening to make the process more efficient.

And now we all pay the price. It's apparent to any sane observer that hip-hop and rap are cancerous blights on society, and that they are hugely responsible for perpetuation of racism and the class dichotomy between blacks and whites in this country. But to actually say such a thing, or attempt to defend it when someone else dares to?

Unthinkable!!

Outcast unclean!!

RACISM!!

Laurie Boris said...

t: Thanks.

aaa: Ohh....silly me...THAT'S why the newspaper wouldn't print this...I'm the wrong COLOR! Damn.

I resent the current climate of race oversensitivity. Oh, how careful we must be not to offend! Yes, there is true racism out there. There are, and always will be, people who, no matter what kind of good examples they see, will always despise people who look differently than they do. But there are just as many basically good people who:

1. are truly not racist.
2. are occasionally racist in their thoughts, but wish they weren't.
3. occasionally say thoughtless things in public, and if they are prominent people, must immediately begin an apology tour at Rev Sharpton's and Jackson's boots.

I just resent that I'm not "allowed" to criticize certain issues because I'm not of that race or color. And I REALLY hate when they do that thing in broadcast journalism...when they send an interviewer who is the same race as the interviewee...this just tells the world that no one else could possibly understand or relate.

Arrrggghh.

Nate said...

Yeah, but even in a "black-on-black" interview, the questions will be softballs, lest the interviewer be painted an "Uncle Tom".

Face it, Truth has no place in journalism.