Why Doesn't Al Sharpton Fight Against Offensive Rap Lyrics?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:48:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

You know what bugs me about Al Sharpton in this whole Imus mess? Why doesn't he fight against rapper lyrics? Oh wait:

Aired March 9, 2005 - 07:30 ET
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. Welcome back, everybody. It's just about half past the hour on this AMERICAN MORNING. In just a few minutes, a new battle plan in the rap wars. The Reverend Al Sharpton is our guest. He's got a new hard-line proposal to make artists quit using violence to sell records. Is it going to work? That's ahead.
O'BRIEN: Well, he is known as a straight shooter. Now, the Reverend Al Sharpton is taking direct aim at rap music, the FCC and also major advertisers. In just a moment, we're going to talk with the former presidential candidate about his new campaign, one that he hopes will prevent artists from cashing in on a culture of violence.

Ooops, never mind.

< Brian Williams Brings Left and Right Together | GonzoGate and the USA for Wisconsin >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Why Doesn't Al Sharpton Fight Against Offensive Rap Lyrics? | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

hahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:16:45 PM EST

Can't believe anything you hear on TV anymore, not that I have a TV.

In defense of rap music..... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by kdog on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:45:20 PM EST

it is an art form, and criticizing rap music over some of the terms used is like criticizing (or in the extreme banning) Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain because it contains a racial slur.

Don't like it, then don't buy it and don't listen to it. It really is that simple. By all means, Sharpton or anyone else has the right to denounce whatever music or speech they do not like. They do not have the right to be my censor.

I don't need or want the FCC, the jesus patrol, or the liberal pc crowd telling me what I can and can't hear, what I can or can't say. Since the slope is so slippery, better to let offensive remarks be spoken and then justly (or unjustly) criticized by counter-speech.

A different point (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:00:18 PM EST

I got this from Sully:

"It's a completely different scenario. [Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing s**, that's trying to get a n*a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them muthaf**as say we in the same league as him," - Snoop Dogg, on the Imus affair.

I disagree with with the attack on women in the hood both for the sentiment and the facts. The fact is black women are the anchor of black families. I think Snoop's argument falls well flat.


I see some truth.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by kdog on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:19:39 PM EST

in Snoop's statement though.

Kinda like Keith Richards said when the Stones were criticized for "Some Girls"....it was his personal experience and he sang about it. Which is far different than Imus or anybody else using a derogatory term with prejudice.

I agree with Snoop in that there is such a thing as a ho. Just like there is such a thing as a scrub or a deadbeat.

I agree with you in that the term is too often used with prejudice. The young ladies at Rutgers are clearly not ho's, the single mothers doing the right thing for their kids clearly are not as well.


Oh I take that point (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:21:47 PM EST

but I still think he is wrong.


wrong about? (none / 0) (#13)
by aztrias on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:13:30 PM EST

Wrong because it's inaccurate or debasing?
He's a man making a narrower generalization and I suppose even if it came down to describing a specific individual, it would be "wrong".
OK.
I'm still not interested in the phony equivalence between Snoop Dog and Imus. I also think Snoop's comments clarify the fact Imus is saying more, and doing far greater damage with his Nappy Ho comment than Snoop achieves with his language and shtick.


: Both (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:23:11 PM EST

Want to know what point I take?

Was it Keith or Mick? (none / 0) (#12)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:52:55 PM EST

To my ears that voice sounds like Mick.

It was Mick (none / 0) (#21)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:56:32 AM EST

singing "Some Girl," although Kieth may have wrote the lyrics. I remember it being Mick who made the coomment that it was his personal experience. Micks offensive lyrics were

Black Girls just want to get F@#$ed all night, I just don't have that much jam

The Funny thing about the whole Rapper, Sharpton, and Free markets is this notion that it is Sharpton's responsibility for calling out Imus, Rappers and anyone else for every thing that is racist. What Mick wrote is offensive and Jessie Jackson called him out as a racist. Some Girls sold millions of copies. Just as rappers are offensive. I don't think Sharpton and Jackson should have to be the police for calling out Rappers and Artists whenever they are offensive and racist. I also don't think that the artists, even though they might be racist and offensive, should be the ones we should focus the attention on as the cause of racist and offensive language. There is obviously a market for the inane and offensive. There are also individuals who make decisions on which products to market and promote or give an audience to. MSNBCC, CBS, Record COmpanies, etc. They create the markets. THey could be promoting the politically savy and smart hip hoppers, musicians, poets and artists, but choose to market and promote the dumbed-down, offensive and inane, instead. This is not the free market working, it is intentional and done with a purpose by institutions that have long histories of racism. Everyone's talking about Sharpton, noone is taking CBS, NBC and the other racist organizations to task asking why they gave Imus a show in the first place and promote and market offensive material by really awful rap artists when there is alternative and much smarter material from artists available to promote instead.


Mick is singing lead.... (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:24:40 AM EST

I'd be ashamed not to know that...I was refering to the Stones as a whole singing about it.

I remember Keith being credited with the "my/our personal experience" remark in one of his biographies...but I could be wrong.


No, (none / 0) (#24)
by Peaches on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:39:27 AM EST

You are probably right. I think they both probably had the same defense for it. Those two cats are brothers from another mother.


: They fight.... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:47:16 AM EST

like brothers, thats for damn sure.

True (none / 0) (#16)
by Slado on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:25:38 PM EST

But at what point can we agree that the rap community or urban culture is doing young black males no favors when it portrays them as gangsters, criminals, thugs etc...

That is the image they project on the rest of us. I don't buy the music, I don't watch the shows or the movies but I'd have to be deaf, blind or stupid not to get that impression.

If I constantly project a certain image can I really be offended when that image starts to work it's way into mainstream culture?

Imus was wrong in what he said but he didn't invent the phrase that he used. He IMHO is a racsist and the material was all to available for him to abuse.


My opinion (none / 0) (#20)
by peacrevol on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:04:28 AM EST

rappers rhyme about what they have experienced and what they believe, and I think that's why it comes across as portraying them as gangsters. Many of them started out in the hood and many were gangsters. But the point that is missed by too many of the listeners is that they succeeded despite all the barriers that were in front of them. That's the underlying message that is supposed to get across and that people miss. It's an artform that people who have similar experiences as the rapper can relate to. In that respect, it's the same as country singers singing about cutting hay out in the field and muskadine wine and so forth. If a rapper is talking about a "nappy headed ho" he might be envisioning somebody from the hood that screwed him over.

Al Sharpton has the right to disagree with rap music and say whatever he wants to about it. I have the right to agree or disagree with Al Sharpton. Don Imus has the right to say whatever he wants about a basketball team. Advertisers have the right to stop paying the Don Imus show. I have the right to not listen to Don Imus, and CBS has the right to fire him. I think Al Sharpton makes some good points about some rap taking violence too far, but govt regulation or censorship is not the answer.


: Agreed (none / 0) (#27)
by Slado on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 11:30:30 AM EST

Government censhorship is not the answer but where do we draw the line on standards?
We all agree that certain things shouldn't be on the public airways. Nudity, Extreme Viloence, Excessive Language, porn etc... should not be broadcast in primetime.
When it comes to speech then the market drives what a network won't or will allow it's commentators or broadcasters to say.
See Imus, See Rush getting kicked off ESPN.
So isn't it the right of Al (if he really wants to) and all of us to say that the music industry has gone to far with it's depection of women?
Remember when the market reached back and slapped the Dixie Chics for complaining about Bush they and their allies cried censorship but was it? Wasn't it merely their customers or the market reacting to speech they found offensive?
We can't have it both ways. Either we let the market make the decision or we don't. We can't call it censorship one day and free speech the next.
I guess the real problem for some is that the market hasn't responded to this threat yet. I think it will but until it does I agree with vol that the government shouldn't mandate it.

SSH! you are not supposed (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:18:23 PM EST

to step on conservative talking points!

: Heh (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:22:07 PM EST

But he said he was (none / 0) (#1)
by TexDem on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:57:43 PM EST

really

Why would Rev. Al go there? Look (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:59:34 PM EST

what happened to Tipper and Hillary. Not to mention Snoop Dogg says there is a beneficial purpose.

Here we go again.... (none / 0) (#3)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:14:23 PM EST

What is the difference between free speech and offensive speech? What should be censored?

Under free market theory the really offensive will not get advertisers and like Imus (finally) be gone.

But wait! Rush is still there and Ann Coulter can still encourage violence and and and.....

Tipper was fighting explicit sexual lyrics sold to children, Hillary fought violent video games IIRC.

Hate speech is different and rap lyrics and Imus etc make fun of women and ethnic groups and democrats and are just plain mean.

And we can't count on free markets keeping it off, not if their interests are aligned with keeping the mob under control.

free market theory (none / 0) (#11)
by gollo on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:46:52 PM EST

is not a moral theory, and makes no distinction between an offensive product and a non-offensive one.

An offensive product will only become a non-profit making product when the consumer is educated in why the product is offensive, and what harm, if any, it produces.

Even then, you are still counting on peer pressure to make it non-profit making, as the offensive content is itself a subjective quality.

On the whole, I think it is better that people have the right to free speech, as you have in America, even when it is hateful, than hate speech legislation like the kind we have in the U.K.


: Agreed (none / 0) (#17)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:44:55 AM EST

We are told that the market can regulate itself.
I am for free speech, even if offensive. I was musing about the need to protect my kids in a culture where media has gone wild vs keeping speech free vs keeping hate speech and speech like yelling Fire in a theater. It is difficult. especially when you're a liberal.
Imus was disgusting. The fact that his advertisers finally pulled the plug is good. But the others are still out there. I believe they can talk but the lies and hate need to be exposed with other speech.
And then there is the speech that caused Kathy Sierra to contact the police - threats and an atmosphere where hateful speech is deemed OK, even by progressive bloggers (see Kos on the subject).
I don't have answers.

I agree with the reply above (none / 0) (#18)
by peacrevol on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:50:44 AM EST

Eminem lyrics from "Rain Man"

You find me offensive? I find you offensive
For finding me offensive
Hence if I should draw a line on any fences
If so to what extense if
Any, should I go? 'Cause it's getting expensive
Being on the other side of the courtroom on the defensive
They say that I cause extensive
Psychological nerve damage to the brain when I go to lengths this,
Far at other people's expenses
I say your all just too god d** sensitive
It's censorship
And it's down right blasphemous
Listen to s* now cause I won't stand for this
And Chirs-stiff-pher Reeves won't sit for this neither
And let's clear this up too I ain't got no beef with him either
He used to be like a hero to me
I even believe I, had one of those 25 cent stickers on my re--frigerator
Right next to Darth Vader
And Darth must have put a hex on him for later
I feel like it's my fault cause of the way that
I stuck him up in between him and Lex Luther
I killed Superman, I killed Super--man
And how ironic, that I'd be the bad guy
Kryptonite: The Green Chronic...
...Now in the Bible it says
Thou shalt not watch two lesbians in bed,
Have homosexual sex
Unless of course you were given the consent to join in
Then of course, it's intercourse
And it's bi-sexual sex
Which isn't as bad, as long as you show some remorse for your actions
Either before, during or after performing the act of that which
Is normally referred to have such, more commonly known phrases
That are more used by today's kids
In a more derogatory way but
Who's to say, what's fair to say, and what not to say?
Let's ask Dr. Dre
Dr. Dre? (What up?)
I gotta question if I may? (Yeah)
Is it gay to play Putt-Putt golf with a friend (Yeah)
And watch his butt-butt when he tees off? (Yeah)
But, but! I ain't done yet
In football the quarterback yells out hutt-hutt
While he reaches in another grown man's a*..."

Who is the govt to say what's offensive and what's not? That's for each of us to decide individually by choosing what we listen to. Hillary, and I cant believe I'm about to do this, was right. (ech pth pth, excuse me) The lables on rap cd's let you know that there is content that may be offensive to some. I think as long as people know that they may be subjecting themselves to something they may not agree with or may find offensive, it should not be touched by govt. The more power we give govt over our daily lives, the more they're going to try to take until we cant say anything and we have to wear swasticas and walk single file all wearing the same clothes saluting our dictator.


: hmmm (none / 0) (#19)
by peacrevol on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 08:51:49 AM EST

the bold part is not bold for emphasis. i'm not sure why it's bold to be honest. i didnt intend to do that and dont know how i did it.

: Love that line.... (none / 0) (#26)
by kdog on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:48:53 AM EST

"I find you offensive for finding me offensive"...thats pretty clever.

the reval (none / 0) (#14)
by orionATL on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:21:01 PM EST

what bothers me about the reverend al sharpton,

other than his shady beginnings,

is that he, like the a-man, is a media product - like gillette razors, or northern toilet paper, or budweiser beer.

he, and the media company that supports him (who would that be, by the way?),

make money for putting on a show, for talking publicly.

so,

why invite imus, or senator biden, or

whoever to the sharpton party?

why,

can you guess,

it raises the ratings.

funny guy or not,

the reval is a money-loving, money-making schtick artist.

sort of like lucy in p'nuts (5 cents, please),

but more expensive.

Who's a racist (none / 0) (#23)
by Rev dave on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 10:26:03 AM EST

Racist, whos the racist, in todays world just about everyone. Yea,
> Imus should not have said what he did, but I really think too much
> was made out of it. If it was a black American citizen making a
> satement about white's in a similar way nothing would be said about
> it.Thats the Gods honest truth and everyone knows it. Look at these
> so called gangester rap musiscians for instance, have you ever paid
> attention to the words of their songs? The racist remarks made in a
> lot of this music (rap)is beyond racist, its pure hatered towards
> White people. Where are the censors when it comes to such blaintant
> racisim againist Whites. Forget about Kramer too, and listen to a
lot
> of your black comics today, they seem as though they cant get a
laugh
> without knocking down the White race, Cris Rock your not funny,
funny
> does not come at the expense of anothers feelings.Rev. Sharpton is a
> big bigot ,I see him as KKK in black face, wow,He loves to stir the
> racial pot, but only in one direction.The point I'm tring to make
is
> that predjiduice comes in all colors and it can be expressed loudly
> or very subtely as mentioned above, but it is what it is and you
cant
> deny its many shades, or its stealth or out right in your face name
> calling. We all need to think before speaking, and acting out.Not
> just Mr Imus but all of us ,and that means you Rev. (man of God)
> Sharpton. Do you think Jesus would have handled this matter as you
> did? Just my thoughts, Sincerly,Rev. D.C.White Sr. Please excuse my
> spelling i do wish to know what others think on this subject love
ya
> all
>
> Friday April 13, 2007 - 12