No Trivia

Archive for the ‘NO HOMO’ Category

Ja Rule Week Part One: Ja & the Gays…*

leave a comment

Last Friday, SOHH reported a story about Ja Rule saying some goofy homophobic shit in an interview with ‘Complex’ magazine and GLAAD responding with “a statement” condemning Ja’s words. According to the article, Ja Rule was asked about the issue of “degrading” images and lyrics in rap and he responded with this:“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…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.” Although Ja Rule goes a little far in suggesting that some dudes making out on MTV is “fucking up America” he sort of has a point. If we’re going to play any kind of game of “morals” be those “morals” send gays to hell or respect everyone regardless of sexual preference, it actually is kind of fucked-up that MTV shows debaucherous dating shows. And even though Ja was on some Imus-ian deflection type shit, he makes a good point about the many, many other aspects of popular culture that offend and go unchecked while hip-hop takes all the heat. The fact that GLAAD even responded to Ja Rule shows the way every special interest group jumps on the “hip-hop hate” bandwagon for some quick publicity. It is even more glaringly opportunistic because it’s a small quote in some stupid magazine from a guy no one takes seriously as a rapper, let alone as any kind of valid social or political commentator.

GLAAD’s exploitation of rap controversy is additionally problematic because so much ire is now spit at the minority group whose political protest playbook GLAAD and others stole whole pages from…There’s a quote from Ishmael Reed in the 1992 preface to Eldridge Cleaver’s ‘Soul On Ice’ that sums this maneuver up quite well: “women and gays…have placed their oppression front and center and have even made villains of the former black male machos who fantasized a revolution (while borrowing their strategies)” (8). That is to say, GLAAD uses the same kind of scare-mongering, racism, and phobia of black culture that those partially responsible for GLAAD being able to advance their cause, once opposed!

Additionally, Ja Rule’s statement (and GLAAD’s response) shows the way the right and the left employ the same tactics to silence those that threaten their values. GLAAD, like O’Reilly or Paula Zahn or many others, play the censorship game, scapegoating those they disagree with on some high-minded moral ground even as they scoff and speak-out against other groups that censor and scapegoat on some high-minded moral ground. I know, I know, two men making out on television isn’t quite the same as the “objectification” found in ‘Tip Drill’ but it’s really only “different” in terms of what one deems offensive or morally/ethically “wrong”. The only thing that both sides can agree upon is that rap music is an evil, horrible thing. Like the right and much of the left, GLAAD focuses upon the controversy more than actual progress. Notice how Kanye West’s comments on homophobia were not invoked in reference to this recent, negative incident in rap. In this little article from GLAAD’s website from the time of Kanye’s positive comments, they are still primarily framed within “the fallout” he received, not any of the potential good his statements may have done. Reactionary groups like GLAAD not only thrive on these moronic statements, they seek them out and in this case, additionally find a connection to the rap controversy that is sure to get people talking.

*Just kidding about the Ja Rule week…

-Reed, Ishmael. Preface. ‘Soul on Ice’ by Eldridge Cleaver. New York: Delta TP, 1992. 1-11.

Written by Brandon

September 21st, 2007 at 5:14 am

Posted in Ja Rule, NO HOMO

leave a comment

Is This Whiteface?

Think of how much headwrap-wearing black tail whitey-whites with the balls to toss around words like “co-opt” and “blackface” and some ‘African American Studies’ classes under their belt must get…

Jamie Radford’s post, linked through OhWord’s constantly-updated “shared items”, keeps popping back into my head. The post is labeled ‘Is This Blackface?’ and discusses some random-ass L.A fashion line,Fowl Clothing which Radford sees as signifying:

“…a recent trend among middle and upper-class white kids displaying a fashion sense that typifies some of the most obvious signfiers of hip-hop fashion — straight-billed caps, colorful jackets, flashy jewelry — but in such a way as to almost mock hip-hop culture.”

At first glance, it sounds like something I could agree with. Recall this post: ‘The Deadening Effects of Ironic Indie Culture’ but I gotta disagree with Radford, painfully sincere as he seems to be. I take issue with half-formed assertions, invoking “blackface” and racism because they only damage legitimate, more thought-out critiques. It made me think of this post which totally misreads the Rolling Stones’ ‘Brown Sugar’ as being racist. It helps no one to toss-out thoughts about race and appropriation that are half-formed.

On the no-homo tip, ‘Fowl Clothing’ is just plain derivative and boring. An attempt at American Apparel-esque simplicity with some Bachelor’s degree in fashion-level print-making stolen from ‘Mark Ecko’ or ‘BAPE’ who of course, took it from skateboarder, metal, and punk-rock fashion…Also, making patterns out of iconic movie images like ‘The Shining’ is pretty played-out. The models also kill me. They look like girls you make-out with at a college “dance party” and spend the rest of the semester trying to avoid.But Radford has more pressing concerns (as he should); he is responding to the models’ holding of guns and wearing of Slick Rick-thick chains. Yes, the pictures are ironic. Yes, they are stupid. Maybe even sorta kinda racist, but its fashion! It’s always dripping with irony. I’m more frustrated by Fowl Clothing’s inability to do pseudo-subversiveness right than by any ill-informed moves towards disrespecting hip-hop culture.Fashion, in general, has a good grasp of irony as being alienating and harsh rather than cute and funny. Totally motivated by the next-big-thing, controversy, and $$$ as fashion designers often are, the ironic nature of some fashion points towards ugly truths. These Fowl Clothing pictures fall short but, American Apparel’s pervy-polaroids and Calvin Klein’s heroin-chic although “problematic” from a moral perspective, are truly subversive in their ability to make people look gross AND attractive, which is what sex is anyway…

Perhaps the biggest problem with Radford’s post is that it is founded on very-shaky ground. No one will ever agree upon what is true respect for hip-hop culture and what is disrespect. It gets even more complicated when you make assertions as to who is an “outsider” or “insider” in relation to that said culture. On a simple level, I can agree with Radford’s definition because it is pragmatic. The insiders to the culture are “those that really grew up in a neighborhood where they had to tote guns to survive” and the rest of us, are outsiders. But it’s not that simple!

I don’t think Radford (or anybody) accosts middle or upper-class blacks who also never had to “tote guns to survive” (whatever that means) but wear hip-hop clothing. Remember Tony Dungy’s kid? He tragically took his own life but for those few hours when you could look at his myspace you saw a kid, that in terms of hip-hop culture was every bit an outsider as these indie-fashion fucks. He’s allowed to do it simply because he was black?

There’s also the fact that outside of the chains and guns, which are working at a level of irony so thick and muddled that the joke seems to be ironic-white-guys-toting-guns-unironically-to-the-point-that-it-becomes-ironic, these white kids in L.A are wearing the epitome of “white” sub-cultural fashion not conventional hip-hop fashion. These designs comes out of the world of metal, punk-rock, skateboarding, and even, emo culture and have, in recent years, been dare I say- SAMPLED by designers of all races involved in hip-hop culture.

Obviously these Fowl Clothing people are being insincere but for the most part, we can’t really gauge sincerity, so forget about it. Strict rules on sincerity leads to weird grey areas no one wants to fuck with: Is Nigo doing blackface? is Pharrell doing whiteface? Are the Shop Boyz doing anything different in regards to race-mockery than Fowl Clothing? On one level, the Shop Boyz are doing a strange reversal that is primarily absent from the culture and as a result, we can applaud it, as Sach. O. of ‘OhWord’ said, it’s “a taste of their own medicine” while Fowl Clothing is maintaining a super-obvious parody of hip-hop, but really, the two ain’t that different…

Written by Brandon

June 29th, 2007 at 5:54 am

Posted in Indie, Irony, NO HOMO, fashion, woon

leave a comment

Black Hercules

It’s not quite Unforgivable but this guy rules.

Written by Brandon

March 27th, 2007 at 3:36 am

Posted in Black Herc, NO HOMO, Youtube