Posted by Cookdcokehop:

Now you want to blame rap music. If I'm not misunderstood country music had lyrics about lynching n*ggas. Get ya facts straight homie. Rap music talks mostly about what goes on in the hood and the life after the hood. You probably have never lived in the hood and never went through hard times like some of these rappers have. Ban Rap Music...how about you just ignore that **** and go listen to something else. I live in the hood I can relate to the lyrics even though there are times, I am embarassed to, **** is real. Now some unfunny character goes on air and calls my poeple "Nappy Headed Hoes" and that mutha****a shouldnt get fired...get the **** outta here! If we were to utter the words "redneck" to a cop when we were once again getting pulled over for nothing we would catch a Rodney King. Don't state to what you can't relate to.

Posted by bigbeast:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by Cookdcokehop:

Now you want to blame rap music. If I'm not misunderstood country music had lyrics about lynching n*ggas. Get ya facts straight homie. Rap music talks mostly about what goes on in the hood and the life after the hood. You probably have never lived in the hood and never went through hard times like some of these rappers have. Ban Rap Music...how about you just ignore that **** and go listen to something else. I live in the hood I can relate to the lyrics even though there are times, I am embarassed to, **** is real. Now some unfunny character goes on air and calls my poeple "Nappy Headed Hoes" and that mutha****a shouldnt get fired...get the **** outta here! If we were to utter the words "redneck" to a cop when we were once again getting pulled over for nothing we would catch a Rodney King. Don't state to what you can't relate to.

Who's blaming rap music?

He's refering to the Jason Whitlock article:

Okay, I've been trying to avoid this thread but I just got pulled in by Whitlocks article. First, I am a former hip hop journalist, myself. I don't disagree that Hip hop can be very influential piece of art to many of the youth who aren't able to seperate reality from fiction. And in most cases it can have a negative affect on the youth. Rappers have sort of become the spokes-people of the projects and many of the youth out in surburbia (who account for more then 70% of rap CD purchases). You can hear the harsh, sometimes degrading lyrics being recited by little boys in the projects who look way too young to be saying such words. These same boys (who dont know any better) sometimes think the rappers actually live by the words they speak which is far from the truth. And yes, you get a handfull who may try to follow in the footsteps of the song they heard (As a teen, I sparked my first blunt listening to Redmans 'how to roll a blunt').

But to put the brunt of the blame on hip hops shoulders is absurd. First, It was totally unfair for Whitlock to say that the girls on the Rutgers team was probably snapping thier fingers to a 50 cent song. I doubt he knows thier backgounds and even if they did dance to a hip hip song, it still doesn't justify being called "Nappy headed h**". These rappers comming up now are products of the industry. Most positive rap (yes it still exists) dont get any play over the air-waves (radio stations, MTV, BET etc.) And these companies are not controlled by minorities. Record labels which for the most part also isn't owned by any minorities, are reponsible for putting out most of these negative images these rappers portray. Its big money in trying to mimic 50 cent etc, so these labels set out to search for the next one, and if they can't find the next rappper that survived 9 bullets, they will create him. I know of a bunch of rappers, that were told to change their style (one that will more fit in to the ignorant-rap that is dominating the airwaves) or get dropped from the label.

Parenting and our horrible educational system (believe it or not but I'm a teacher) hasn't done anything to pick up the slack. Some of these kids (and most of the parents) aren't getting the proper eduaction that can give them the proper guidance and alternative ways of thinking and pulling themsleve out of that ghetto mentality. Educators have really failed the kids in the projects.

[Edited by - bigbeast on 04-12-2007 11:15 AM]

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think what we are witnessing are the awkward tectonic movements of blacks gaining power in this country. They are flexing their muscles and making themselves herd through the market place.

I think there will be a lot of little earthquakes and volcanoes in the process. For instance I think OJ Simpson got off because in a subconscious and symbolic way the jurors didn't want another of theirs to get "lynched," whether they believed him innocent or not. And I personally am okay with that in the sense I enjoyed seeing them have it their way for a change; though I'm sure the families of the victims feel otherwise. Obviously.

Anyway, these will be awkward times; sometimes the right heads will roll, sometimes the wrong, but we have to go through this and in the process maybe some needed ground rules will be set in place, and things will evolve. Discrimination and harassment lawsuits are a means to that end, as is using dollars to influence advertisers. Dialog and spectacle can also help, especially of the right kind, and maybe that's what this Imus case is about.

Bumpy ride, but in the right direction.

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think what we are witnessing are the awkward tectonic movements of blacks gaining power in this country. They are flexing their muscles and making themselves herd through the market place.

I think there will be a lot of little earthquakes and volcanoes in the process. For instance I think OJ Simpson got off because in a subconscious and symbolic way the jurors didn't want another of theirs to get "lynched," whether they believed him innocent or not. And I personally am okay with that in the sense I enjoyed seeing them have it their way for a change; though I'm sure the families of the victims feel otherwise. Obviously.

Anyway, these will be awkward times; sometimes the right heads will roll, sometimes the wrong, but we have to go through this and in the process maybe some needed ground rules will be set in place, and things will evolve. Discrimination and harassment lawsuits are a means to that end, as is using dollars to influence advertisers. Dialog and spectacle can also help, especially of the right kind, and maybe that's what this Imus case is about.

Bumpy ride, but in the right direction.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Blue, I think he began to earn the rep as an "uncle Tom" when he went after black athletes about their conduct but defended Jeff George. I think Lupica called him out for it on the Sports Reporter before. He was furious about Lupica calling him out for Jeff George (Lupica wasn't the only one but I guess Whitlock took offense to him). It should be noted that Scoop Jackson also called him out about his constant defense of his friend Jeff George. He follow it up with making insulting remarks. I don't think it would be an issue if he remained constant about athlete's conduct regardless of race or friendship. I think that was the point that Lupica was making but he just blasted him and continues to do. I have heard other stories about him that I do not wish to repeat because they are heresay but I think he is as complex as Don Imus and Rev. Al. I like some stuff he writes and some stuff he doesn't. I rather get feedback from a guy like a William Rhodes rather than Jason Whitlock concerning this matter.

I think it would be more appropriate to post an article that gives us the context of the Jeff George incident. Can make a judgement on him with so little info. This interview and the article are pretty solid from my point of view. If going after black athletes and defending Jeff George makes him a sell-out. Does his defense of Barry Bonds make him a "sell in". Does his defense of the Duke boys make him a sell-out again? Wouldn't context matter? Normally it doesn't the name calling usually proceeds any understanding of context.

I don't know. He may be the biggest "sell out" ever. But the two articles I read were fine with me. Saying he "went after black athletes" and defended Jeff George is pretty vague. What black athletes? What were the circumstances? Why did he defend Jeff George? Why did he defend Barry Bonds? Why did he defend the Duke boys? Did he attack those "black athletes" because he can relate to them and cares about them and wants those guys to change their ways? Did he attack those "black athletes" to be vindictive and show his hatred for his race? Do you understand what I'm getting at. Too many people make judgements based on the color of those in the arguments and do not pay attention to the context or the content of the argument. Saying he attacked "black athletes" and defended Jeff George as the reason he is a sell out is not a valid argument.

Posted by Bippity10:

Based on what I know so far

"I will try and locate his articles about his defense of Jeff George (he is a former college temmate)."

He seems to be less of a sell out and possibly instead a poor journalist that will defend a person based on their personal relationship. That's my first thought based on what you've told me. But I could be wrong.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by Bippity10:

Based on what I know so far

"I will try and locate his articles about his defense of Jeff George (he is a former college temmate)."

He seems to be less of a sell out and possibly instead a poor journalist that will defend a person based on their personal relationship. That's my first thought based on what you've told me. But I could be wrong.

You could be right. It is just on his blog when you make the point of his defense of George is similar to Scoop Jackson's defense of TO. He doesn't see the comparisons and has been called the Tom by bloggers. On his blog site he post no Jeff George bashing allow. There are other blogs that go after him but are too liberal to post on this forum and are based on heresay. I would suggest just going onto his blog and reading his comments and articles and the responses. He goes after young blacks for scathing comments about each other but then calls Scoop Jackson a "clown" and make other remarks about his purpose at ESPN. I guess he could also be viewed as being a hyprocrite as well.

http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/10-rules-for-rolling-with-big-sexy/20061010223209990001

I'll check it out. Thanks for the link. I remember him vaguely on the sport's reporters but not much about the rest of his career. I found myself disagreeing with him a lot on the Sports Reporters but loved the fact that he seemed to approach topics from a different point of view instead of the same old one's.

Posted by playa2:

Posted by Bippity10:

[ White corporate dollars loves the fact that they can make millions off of the rap industry by making us look like thugs. And we go right along with it like sheep. It's not just a small portion of rap like it was in the day. It's not just a necessary message that needed to be part of who we are. It's now the only message. This is something we can control. So guys like Whitlock are saying LET'S DO SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT WE CAN CONTROL AND STOP WAITING FOR OTHERS TO CHANGE.

For that last line to ever be possible , it's like asking the big schools in football and Basketball in the NCAA to only give scholarships to legit student atheletes with passing grades.

When we all know too many guys come out of college that can't read and write, we are gonna have to wait for OTHERS to change their hypocritical look but don't tell policy for changes to take place.

I don't know I think that's defeatist. You can do both at the same time. Change policy while also cleaning out your own house. I do agree that there are far to many hypocritical universities that love having these guys fill their seats and leave without an education or job prospects. There are also to many parents that aren't following up trying to make sure that their kids aren't being used and are actually getting an education. It goes both ways.

I used to have a teammate that would complain about the NCAA players not getting money but having their work used to profit the universities. He felt we were being used. I agreed with him on this point but he never quite got my point. My point was, yes we are being used. We are also getting a free education. So use them back!!!! He never got it.

We were all being used. But some decided to be used, complain about it, and get nothing out of it and be poor for the rest of their lives. Others decided to be used, complain about it, get an education, still complain, make some money, still complain, take your family on a nice vacation, still complain, send your kids to a great school, still complain.............


[Edited by - bippity10 on 04-12-2007 1:07 PM]