Andrew Bluebond, writing for the far left website, Campus Progress, has titled a piece, "Why the History of Hip-Hop Should Be Taught in School," that neatly sums up what's wrong with higher education. In fairness you should expect as much from a gender studies major, but even this left me shaking my head.
In a nation where we have ridiculously high dropout rates, it just goes to show the politicking that goes into education curriculum. If you have no standards of what is good, then you will think anything is. Which explains why they are such things as hip hop professors and experts.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Should We Teach Hip Hop? Hardly
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Good point, Charles! Clearly anything produced by Black people is inferior to REAL art (which is, naturally, produced by white people) and therefore shouldn't be studied.
The stupidity of the comment section on display once again, ladies and gents.
The real racist is the person who doesn't believe black people produce anything other than hip hop or that hip hop is exclusively a black thing.
Thanks real racist for exposing yourself!
The real stupidity of Charles Johnson on display.
I never said Black people only produce hip hop.
However, hip hop is an art form that is rooted primarily in African-American culture, just like Jazz. To deny that would be simply ignorant. Just like you have white jazz musicians like Bix Biederbecke, you do have white hip hop artists, like Eminem. But that doesn't detract from the fact that hip hop is fundamentally a Black art form.
However, Charles, that doesn't change the calculus here: You single out a fundamentally Black art form for being "non-art." It's a classic racist canard.
Good word, "canard."
Only you are wrong about hip hop. It's a justification primarily of violence, sex, and anger. It celebrates a giant middle finger to the system that is America. It's not real music, but of course you don't have taste so you can't be called upon as a proper arbiter.
It's not real music? Exactly. You don't think it's real music because it's a Black art form.
Why? Because you say it's not music because it's about "violence", "sex" and "anger" and because it's a "giant middle finger" to America. (Never mind that this is largely inaccurate and where it isn't, it's a gross oversimplification.)
However, I'm sure you consider rock and country music to be music. Ever heard the Beatles? A lot of their music is about sex (e.g. Lay, Lady Lay, Norweigian Wood). Ever heard John Lennon? "Imagine" is quite opposed to America, the American system and states in general. And ever heard of Guns n Roses? "Used to love her" is about domestic violence and murder.
At the root of this, you're making up justifications that are completely inconsistent. I'm sure you acknowledge rock music to be real music, even though it contains violence, sex, anger and anti-American sentiments. You only question hip hop and rap.
For what it's worth, I loathe the Beatles and John Lennon. I consider "Imagine" to be a perfect example of all that is wrong with the wish list of modern liberalism.
I'm also very critical of most modern music, so before you comment, look into my opinions. Don't assume.
"It's a justification primarily of violence, sex, and anger."
Wrong
"It celebrates a giant middle finger to the system that is America."
It's hardly a Republican phenomenon!
"It's not real music"
In your opinion.
"but of course you don't have taste so you can't be called upon as a proper arbiter."
Just curious as to how you know a) how the commenter has no taste, b) what defines taste, c) how you arrived in the position of judging who and who doesn't have taste?
I can't stand hip-hop either, but to make comments such as these as though they are facts in beyond ignorant.
Although I don't enjoy it, I can at least recognize that there is an art to it, as well as whole butt-load of culture and history rolled into it as well.
Studying, politics, economics, finance, and the glory of avarice and exploitation is equally as worthless to me -- but that's just my opinion -- it's not a fact.
Once more, if you have nothing nice to say about something, why not try SHUTTING THE FCUK UP.
For dogs sake, take a break from the hatred! There'll be plenty of things to play victim to and get your panties all in a bunch about next semester.
xoxox
Ah, Charles. You expose yourself yet again. You admit that the Beatles, whom you don't like, are part of "modern music." But hip hop is "not real music."
Yet again, music you don't like by white people is merely aesthetically displeasing, but music you don't like by Black people is not even art.
"Ah, Charles. You expose yourself yet again."
I just threw up in my mouth.
He doesn't dislike black-music. He dislikes hip hop.
A lot of the great Jazz Saxophonists who I'm sure charles enjoys.
Stop making him out to be a racist just because he hates hip hop
Don't you know that the left has only one argument -- calling you a racist?
Charles, you’ve got to come clean with your full opinion on music. I don’t think we can disagree more about the subject, but I can’t find a clear cut article you've written as an example of what you think.
It's like, James Brown is bad music because of the lack of music "standards" and his promotion of shiftlessness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K3KbzjT6Sc
Pavarotti is good because of his dedication to music standards and drawing on "higher" ideals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdTBml4oOZ8
But what is it when Pavarotti asks James Brown to do a duet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Febr_t_qa9U
Charles doesn't merely dislike (or even "hate") hiphop. He thinks it isn't music.
However, Charles does "loathe" the Beatles and John Lennon. But he does still consider them to be music.
This is more than semantics. This is Charles' blatantly racist double standard.
(And, oh yeah, sorry about "Expose yourself" didn't mean to make you vom.)
Keep at it, Charlie! The obvious truth behind sentiments like these will never be more fully brought into light than by the idiocy of those who are offended by them.
I do disagree, though, about the basic value of rap. I do think it is real music (I think it's silly to say that it isn't) but more importantly it can be quite good: intelligent, imaginative, and culturally fascinating at its best. But not all things are 'good' in equal ways, and I agree that it's largely the art of nihilistic, amoral cultural impulses, and certainly not a proper object for serious academic study (as a field of its own). My own personal caveat about rap is- in general- while it can often be very skillful, imaginative art, it's very obviously not fit for the education of children, as the best art most readily is.
Also: you don't like The Beatles? What about before they got all bull-shitty? You don't even like Please Please Me?
Post a Comment