Monday, October 20, 2014

White Rappers and Hip Hop Authencity


          In the Hip Hop industry, there has been a great controversy regarding white rappers and how “authentic” their music is in echoing the trials and triumphs of urban black youth. Hip Hop Music began in predominantly black areas where artists would voice the political and societal concerns of Black people in the United States. Since it’s beginning, Hip Hop music was used as a tool to address racial issues and the use of police brutality on Black men and women. Ultimately, Hip Hop Music rose into the American music industry enabling artists across the country to become well known.  However, due to the fact that most of rappers were Black, Hip Hop Music became “music for black audiences”. Each rapper had a story to tell about his or her experiences in a predominantly Black setting and this drew mass audiences of Black people who shared these experiences. As a result of this sentiment, many white rappers find hardships in the Hip Hop Industry because not all of them connect to Black Audiences that grew up in "the hood”. As Ben Bollig states in,White Rapper/Black Beats:Discovering a Race Problem in the Music of Gabrieal o Pensador, “Rap, the combination of rhythmically delivered rhymes (MC-ing) with variously adapted pre-recorded (DJ-ing) has risen from the Bronx ghetto to become a symbol of Black Protest and economic power…(Bolig,2002).  In this definition, white rappers often times are seen as imitating and making a mockery of Hip Hop because they do not fit into the image a “typical rapper”. For example, one white rapper that has faced hardships throughout his career is Vanilla Ice who claimed to have had the same experiences as Black rappers. The problem that many critiques found with this claim was the fact that Vanilla Ice grew up in a suburb in Texas and never faced the hardships of urban inner city life as a Black person. Vanilla Ice’s lyrics also reflected the world of suburban youth who were mostly white and came from higher economic classes than that of Black fans who came from poor and less economically developed areas (Leechor,.2008).  Mejin Leechor reflects this belief stating, “When the press revealed that he had actually grown up in suburban Texas, critics and rap fans skewered him, destroying his musical career.(Leechor,2008)" The fact that Vanilla Ice did not fit into the criteria of a “rapper” made him vulnerable to criticism. For one thing, it was hard for many Black rappers to see Vanilla Ice on the same equal level because 1.He was white 2.He grew up in the suburbs and 3. He did not know what it is like to live as a Black person in the urban setting.  Leechor continues to state, “He had broken rule the first rule of hip-hop authenticity: stay true to yourself.  White rappers experienced nearly a decade of great difficulty breaking into the field after Vanilla Ice’s deception.  Whiteness and hip-hop authenticity suffered a critical rupture, and Vanilla Ice became the industry scapegoat.” Consequently, as a result of this, white rappers found other hardships in terms of the privileges that they had in the music industry as opposed to Black rappers. In the 2014 Grammy's Macklemore,a white rapper won the award for best rap album of the year beating black artist Kendrick Lamar. This created a huge controversy for Mackelmore due to the claims that his "whiteness and usage of "clean rap” made him acceptable to the music industry rather than that of Black artists like Kendrick Lamar who also raps about the same themes similar to Macklemore.  

Vanilla Ice


                                                                     
Macklemore


















White Rapper/Black Beats: Discovering a Race Problem in the Music of Gabriel o Pensador
Ben Bollig
Latin American Music Review / Revista de Música Latinoamericana, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Autumn - Winter, 2002), pp. 159-178
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556447

Rappers, White, and Justin Timberlake. "BLACK, WHITE, AND BLUE."2008



Janet Yellen's Speech and a Racial Comparison



The topic of income inequality has had many politicians and commentators talking about income and wealth for the past few years, but there has been no real effect to change any anything that causes this inequality. Earlier this month, however, Janet Yellen, the Chair of the Federal Reserve, gave a speech to an economic conference on the disparities recently, but Yellen is particularly important as a nonpartisan figure that is closely followed by investors around the globe. In addition, her powerful position allows her to make concrete economic changes, not just to discuss them.
                Yellen’s measures of inequality in the speech were stark. Income inequality has nearly reached its previous peak attained in 2007. Wealth was even more unequal: Last year, the richest five percent owned sixty-three per cent of all wealth in the United states. Meanwhile, the bottom fifty percent - not five percent - owned only one percent of all wealth. (Cassidy 2014) This means that the top half of the population owns approximately ninety-nine times as much in money and possessions as the bottom half does. This is a totally unsustainable class structure.

Fig. 1: The share of income and wealth of the one-percent. (Saez and Zucman 2014)

However, there was one thing Yellen did not mention in her speech: race. As stated in my last post, race is greatly correlated with differences in income. If income inequality increases, racial inequality is sure to increase in turn. This is even true at the top of the income distribution. “The one percent” is a common term used to denote the top 1% of household income earners. In 2012, this group earned 41.8% of all wealth. (Saez and Zucman 2014)

 
Fig. 2: The one-percent households, divided by race. (Brantley 2014)

According to an analysis from 2011 of data from 2007, the last peak of income inequality, 96.1% of the top one-percent household earners were white, and only 1.4% were black. Even within this division, white households had more income. White median household income in the one percent was $1,296,000, while black median income in the one percent was 823,000. (Brantley 2014)

Unfortunately, most discourse about income inequality is abstract and class-based, focusing on the rich and the poor.  Talking about race alone, however, also obscures the big picture. A fuller understanding of income inequality in this country is reached when it is understood to be based in race as well as class.
 

Works Cited:

Brantley, Shartia. " Who are the black ‘1 percent’? " theGrio, November 21, 2011. Accessed October 19, 2014. http://thegrio.com/2011/11/21/who-are-the-black-1-percent/
Cassidy, John. "Rising Inequality: Janet Yellen Tells It Like It Is." New Yorker, October 17, 2014. Accessed October 19, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/janet-yellen-tells
Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2014). Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data. working paper. http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-zucmanNBER14wealth.pdf

Supreme Court aid the Racial Disparity in the Death Penalty

During the first post, I suggested that the death penalty was racially biased and to dig deeper, I need to explain why. Racial disparity in the death penalty is shown throughout history; with the Supreme Court help, those who violated the constitutional rights of victims can get away with the crime if the criminal is white or if the victim was white. Looking at the graph below, one can see that white victims (more than 75%) are seen as more important to the Supreme Court (the court who justifies if one deserves the death penalty) than any other race. The Court considers to take cases with white victims.


In the article, How the Supreme Court Protects Bad Cop, the article tells several events when the Court favours the cops by constantly denying that the black victims’ rights were violated. In the end, by the Court favouring cops and white victims this has created a racial disparity in the death penalty because those who are put on the death penalty are mainly men of colour. Along with police immunity by the Court, the attorneys are also held a huge amount of power. It was shown in a recent studied, as stated in The Colour of Justice, when attorneys “approved for the death penalty prosecution, 72 percent involved minority defendants” (5). Without directly stating racism, the Court found a way to indirectly keep racial disparity even when it comes to the death penalty by giving the police immunity and attorneys a great deal of power by denying the violation by the police and attorneys.

With this in mind, we now go to the death of Michael Brown. The topic that’s been in the news for months, and continues, is the indirect racism underlying Michael Brown’s death. When the Missouri cop, Wilson, killed Brown, people demanded justice. Just from this simple action by the people took shows that inequality is present when it comes to the death penalty. Wilson should have immediately been sentenced to jail if not the death penalty because Brown’s rights were taken away from him. However, as of today, the cop still did not go on trial to see if he had the rights to kill a young man instead of finding an alternative way of dealing with the situation. Since Wilson is a cop and is white, the chances of him going on the death penalty let alone serving any jail time is very slim thus the reasoning for the uproars and/or protests of demanding justice which the picture below shows.


Just as in Ferguson, there is a higher chance for justice if a white man was a victim than if a black man was a victim. In the article, How the Supreme Court Protects Bad Cops, Chemerinsky details several events when a/some white cop(s) killed a black male without much of a punishment. One of these cases were the Plumhoff vs. Rickard when a high speed chase started and a police officer believed shooting the car would be the best method thus killing the driver and the passenger. The Supreme Court ruled that the police had a valid reason for shooting the car and if necessary policemen can shoot cars during chases until the car stops. Rather than shooting the tire(s) the police immediately jumped to this idea. However, instead of getting the death penalty because the two victims were stripped of the constitutional rights in many ways, he and other cops actually gets encouraged to shoot cars during chases and to continue shooting until the chase is over.

Learning about the immunity of cops and the attorneys' power from the Supreme Court and in the New Jim Crow, and in the article, “How the Supreme Court…” I see that the outcome of the Ferguson trial when started will be disappointing for most because there is a higher chance for the Supreme Court to deny the violation. Racial disparity is only growing when it comes to the death penalty because blacks mainly men are having their rights taken away from them when they are victims in a murder by the Supreme Court when the Court denies the violation of the criminal if white and excuse him from death row.



Bibliography

"Racial Disparities." Death Sentence Focus. Webite. Assessed October 20 2014. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=54

Chemerinsky, Erwin. "How the Supreme Court Protects Bad Cops." New York Times. 2014. Website. Assessed October 20, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/opinion/how-the-supreme-court-protects-bad-cops.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A18%22%7D

"Colour of Justice." Constitutional Rights Foundation. 2014. Website. Assessed October 20 2014. http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/the-color-of-justice.html

"Tension in Ferguson." Vox. 2014. Website. Assessed October 20 2014. http://www.vox.com/2014/8/11/5993609/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting-protests-riots-police-violence-unarmed




Blog Post 2: Ferguson, race, and Social Media

As we all probably know by now, the town of Ferguson, Missouri has been in the news since earlier this summer. It all started when (white) police officer Darren Wilson shot the unarmed (black) young man Mike Brown. While different news outlets covered the story, there was very little consensus on what happened. It was primarily through social media that the residents of the town and people in the surrounding area were able to document and report on the events that began to transpire and give the world more of the story while also pointing out the still prevalent racism in America.


 Tweet from August 23rd pointing out the harmful support people showed towards the officer that shot and killed Mike Brown. Also shows how people took the "I am Mike Brown" movement similar to the hash-tag trend "if they gun me down." In this hash-tag black people showed two pictures of themselves, one of them doing something the media would show as "bad" and another of them either with their friends, families, at school, or at their career. Unfortunately, some (mostly white) people tried to make jokes in the hash-tag, not respecting what the movement was for.(Buzzfeed, another social media source, and information about the movement)  
While these events happened a few months ago, there has been a steady stream of activities and demand for justice coming from Ferguson and supporters of the town. 
       In my last post I talked about the voice social media has given to people of color and while there have been many speaking about the this event, the Black residents of Ferguson and the surrounding area have been in the front lines, largely using Twitter, Vine, and Facebook to share what has happened and what is still happening with the rest of the world.
When the memorial for Mike Brown was burnt down, the police claimed it to be an accident, but people took to social media claiming act was malicious and of racist intent. 

Through different panels and hearings the people of Ferguson and their supporters have kept documenting every decision being made and calling out the injustice of calling peaceful protests "riots," trying to portray black people fighting for justice as "dangerous," "violent," or "thugs." Very recently, violence broke out at the New Hampshire Pumpkin Festival. While this indecent is unrelated to Ferguson in origin, many people have compared the two places to demonstrate how the news, media sources, and social media users are a source of hypocrisy when portraying acts by different people. 
 While the protesters in Ferguson were portrayed as a "riot" and as "looters," the same portrayal was not given to the immediate coverage of the violence in New Hampshire. Many tweets also made jokes trying to get the point of comparison across and point out the flaws of many people's reactions to Ferguson. 

  
Sources: "How The Powerful #IfTheyGunnedMeDown Movement Changed The Conversation About Michael Brown's Death." BuzzFeed. N.p., 13 Aug. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2014. 
https://twitter.com/CarlNyberg312
https://twitter.com/WesleyLowery
https://twitter.com/kcarr78
Pearce, Matt. "Riot Breaks out at New Hampshire Pumpkin Festival." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 19 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.
Kaufman, Scott. "Whites Riot over Pumpkins in NH and Twitter Turns It into Epic Lesson about Ferguson." Raw Story. Rawstory, 19 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing
https://twitter.com/kgosztola
https://twitter.com/JamilSmith
https://twitter.com/anildash
                                                                  

Chinese Exclusion Act and Economic Racism

Immigration restriction laws can trace their roots to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This act, the first major immigration law in the U.S, was put into place by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6th, 1882. The law, as its name reads, barred all Chinese immigrants, specifically laborers, from coming into America, while forbidding any Chinese with prior U.S. residence to obtain citizenship.  This act, a blatant example of immigration discrimination, provides a historical aspect of, not only xenophobia, but also economic racism that may still hold true today.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was designed to increase domestic jobs for American men by barring nearly all male Chinese workers, skilled and unskilled, from entering the country. The influx of Chinese immigrants to west coast America during the mid-nineteenth century provided U.S. companies with many workers at low cost. These Chinese laborers were instrumental in the construction of the American transcontinental railroad. While this work force originally helped the U.S. economy, tax revenue began to fall as American workers were overlooked for cheaper Chinese labor. In 1882, the Exclusion Act was created and expected to last ten years, before being extended in 1892, and finally made permanent in 1902. It wasn’t until 1943, when the Act was repealed, that Chinese immigrants could gain entry and seek citizenship in the U.S.


In looking back at this act, it seems ridiculous and unreasonable that an entire race could be banned from the U.S. based on their economic presence. However, with the current financial situation facing the U.S, and American companies hiring aliens based on cheap labor costs, could Congress ever reenact a law like this? It seems impossible in today’s world, but with enough support, would the U.S. put a ban on all immigration from, say, Mexico and Central America in order to protect jobs for other Americans? It's unlikely that this law could ever exist again, with today's immigration laws, but it's worth understanding the Chinese Exclusion Act and how destructive a similar act would be to racial tolerance in the U.S.


Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)." Open Collections Program: Immigration to the US,. Harvard.edu, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/exclusion.html>.

"Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)." Our Documents -. Teaching With Documents: Using Primary Sources From the National Archives., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=47>.

Why do we still need affirmative action in college admissions

          Colorblindness used to be thought of as a sex-linked gene carried on the X chromosome.  It has slowly evolved into a surprisingly more serious condition that largely affects millions of people in their daily lives.  Colorblindness, mentioned in The New Jim Crow, is discussed as the act of ignoring race and not discussing it in an attempt to create a level playing field.  The ignorance of race does not equal a level playing field as seen in institutional discrimination practices.  These policies that are made to seem race neutral but end up discriminating against a certain race, are very closely related to the colorblindness that is seen in many things today. 
            In Strauss’s article “Why we still need affirmative action for AfricanAmericans in college admissions”, colorblindness is the first problem that is discussed.  Comments are made that “indirect approaches are no substitute for a frontal attack on what is ailing us as a nation.”  The importance here is that the problems faced by African Americans in a colorblind society are larger than many believe.  The African American identity is a lot thicker than people recognize and it is easy to see how their backgrounds factor into many aspects of their lives and not all by choice.  Just making affirmative action necessary will not solve the larger problems.  

“The whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students who come from underprivileged backgrounds.”  The point of affirmative action has been lost after all these years of attempting to ignore race, even to a judge who has the power to decide the fate of many African Americans.  Originally, the purpose was to make up for the wrongs done to blacks during slavery, but now affirmative action has morphed into something aimed to helped minorities that are more socioeconomically disadvantaged.  One of the most important thing that Strauss’s article points to, is the lack of representation of middle class African Americans in colleges due to the favoring of low socioeconomic blacks on applications and the fact that more affluent blacks do not need the help because of their inherited wealth. 

It Takes a Village- Family Stability

This proverb is a very familiar quote that relates to rearing children. Not only are the parents important in the lives of children, but also extended family members, teachers, community member, etc play a large big role in teaching life lessons to them. A child does not grow up in a bubble; he or she is influenced by their environment and shaped by their community. As a result, it is crucial that children have good role models to look up to while growing up. Rosenstein explains, “We must involve the whole community, including the faith community, so that each child has at least one person able to commit the quality time it will take to make a difference in their lives…” Living in close proximity to relatives or in the same household as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins is very beneficial to children and the family as a whole.
Around the 1980’s, more ‘traditional’ families, including the parents and children, took precedent over multigenerational families. Many of the reasons that these types of families were popular were because of outside factors. Some of these factors included the prominence of suburbs with single-family homes, and the ability for seniors over 65 to live on their own. However from about 1940 to 1960, it was very popular to live in multigenerational homes. These factors include the influx of immigrants to the United States and bad economic situations.
With the new wave of immigrants, people would live together while working in the United States. Because of the discrimination and prejudice that immigrants face, it is easier to live in housing with relatives and/or close friends. After the World Wars and as of right now, these immigrants are coming to America with close to nothing. One of the easiest ways to find a place to live is to shack up with people in your family so that you are not spending money on houses, when a family has room and is willing to let you live with them.

            Multigenerational living can be more prevalent with families of color. In 2008, a survey was conducted and revealed that just 13% of white families live in multigenerational homes while at least 20% of Hispanic, Black, and Asian families live with relatives. Living with relatives is very beneficial for families of color because you are able to gain access to more ways to better economic status. Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks have a history of being limited or denied to specific markets. By living with relatives, it gives families more opportunities to share benefits. In addition, Native Americans specifically, believed in living in close-knit multigenerational households, because you can pass down beliefs and customs easily to the next generation. Also, families would have more access to wisdom from their parents or grandparents.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/12/love-marriage-melvin-burgess

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-d-rosenstein/hillary-clinton-is-right_b_5984090.html


http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/03/18/the-return-of-the-multi-generational-family-household/