I thought that Senator Obama’s statement on the subject was a bit too strong for a song that he has nothing to do with. It’s not shocking that a minority group suddenly finding one of their own in a position to change history is excited about the prospect, and is reflecting that excitement in their art – both artfully and poorly. Rap is what Rap is, and the “Average White Voter” is seemingly assumed by my colleague to not enjoy it very much at all. If that is the case, I am sure that this particular song is no exception, but it has very little to do with our next President.
In fact, the song is kind of funny – becuase the stuff he says is obviously ridiculous. Make ME your VP! Too funny.
As my colleague has responded, I’d like to follow in suit.
He said:
Someone needs to ask Obama if the particular lyrics to the Ludacris songs he’s said are on his iPod would be fit for his daughters’ consumption. If not, why does he listen to songs that “perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images” ?
This question supposes that an adult would have no reason (or interest) to listen to music that would not be appropriate for a child. It also supposes that becuase Obama is suggesting that ONE of Luda’s songs “perpetuate[s] misogny, materialism and degrading images,” that the Senator would likewise feel that all of Luda’s songs do the same.
Regardless of all that, music, like all things, is subjective. On some ears it can suggest, or perpetuate misogny and materialsm, and it can be seen as degrading. To the ears of a more educated consumer, however, these results are not necessarily implied. An educated listener might, for example, be aware of the work of Iceberg Slim, and the common (and somewhat convincing argument) of generations of Rap artists that the music they write is meant as representational of the reality they live with – not of the ideal they’d like to work towards. Americans widely recognise that certain experience and education is necessary to put such issues into context – that we are not born with such context. Hence the age limitations we commonly impose on matter we deem “mature.”
So, the question (or accusation) is simplistic, and seeks to look past all of these pesky details, to indict Senator Obama using his own terms. In the end, though, the suppossed contradiction does not exist at all: Senator Obama is not a Child. His listening to music that might push a child’s mind in the wrong direction is not likely to have the same result on our next President, who might, instead, recognize and appreciate it for its cultural value, and for the truth it intends to convey, however controversial, objectionable or incorrect.
To my colleague: thanks for the reminder of Obama’s commentary on his Grandmother. It’s rare, indeed, for a politician to cite racism inside of his own family, and to thus “throw himself under the bus,” but I won’t say that it isn’t bold, completely called for and entirely welcome. Senator Obama has given us a new level of honesty and candor, one hardly expected in the world of Politics. When he talks about “Change,” you can be sure, this is one of the aspects. It’s not Ok for Politicians to lie to the American people, claiming that they exist in some sort of perfected state and are not sucecptible to the failings and pitfalls that the rest of humanity daily navigates. Senator Obama has declined to descend into such deception – and in doing so, he stands alone, above the shoulders of his predecessors.
