“Hip-hop both produces and is produced by a cultural context that often thinks differently about questions of language, writing, identity and ownership from the mainstream discourses of the academy. … Hip-hoppers may have very different ideas about what it means for something to be real, how they relate to communities, how language operates. To the extent that this broad cultural movement influences youth in different ways across the world–always appropriated, always locally inflected–it is important that educators take this into account. Inclusion in the curicculum from this point of view, therefore, is not so much a question of using lyrics or discussing issues in popular culture as it is about engaging much more broadly with a cultural movement that has many different inflections across the globe.”

Alastair Pennycook, in Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows (p.150) (2007)

W.E.B. DuBois

February 23, 1986 - August 27, 1963

(check out Vibe’s tribute)

Hip Hop's Invitation Goes Missing

In a recent New York Times article, Nicholas Powell discusses the ways that the hip hop community has contributed to Obama’s nomination. He discusses how while some hip hoppers have damaged Obama’s campaign by producing misogynistic and vituperative songs about McCain and the Republican party, other hip hoppas, such as Jay Z, Nas, and Russell Simmons, have successfully promoted not only Obama’s campaign, but also the vote.

Although Powell’s article avoids essentializing hip hop, I find it troubling that we only investigate the political side of hip hop when an African-American is running for president. Hip hop has always been political, and, throughout the life-span of hip hop, many politically conscious hip hoppas have dramatically changed the political discourse of their communities as well as our national political discourse. This, however, gets little attention from the mainstream media. Thus, we still have people who believe fully in the stereotypes of hip hop.

Some of the bloggers that responded to Powell’s piece prove that sterotypes of hip hop, like sterotypes of black folk, are still a long way from dieing out.

One blogger writes:

In the mind of this misguided critic of hip hop, all “rappers” don’t really care about politics and political issues such as poverty, discrimination, the economy, race relations, and America’s treatment of people living around the globe; instead, this blogger argues that hip hoppers are actually incapable of thinking about anything other than money, violence, etc.

Even some bloggers that defend “rappers” still can’t get away from embracing stereotypes about hip hop. In response to “Blueblood,” one blogger writes:

I guess it’s very difficult for people to see hip hop in 3 dimensions. In the minds of many listeners, hip hoppas are either truly violent and hateful or they’re just greedy, trying to make a buck off of images of violence and hate.

One reason for this, like I discussed earlier, is the media’s portrayal of hip hop. Although the controversy surrounding Ludacris’s song “Politics” brought widespread negative attention to hip hop, the community activism and political progressivism of hip hop tends to go unreported; in fact, it is silenced.

I guess the mainstream media thinks that positive images of hip hop just don’t sell. I guess they think that no one would tune into a news piece that shows how hip hoppas are helping inner city kids get through school, helping to keep violence off the streets, and helping to educate people about the choices that they have this upcoming November. But, like I said, these images don’t sell…

Now who’s being greedy?

While the DNC wants hip hop to back its candidate, I’m pretty sure that the DNC won’t do much to re-pay hip hop for its decades of political struggle after Obama wins the election. Indeed, mainstream politics has rarely thanked hip hop for any of the positive ideas that hip hop has brought into American political discourse.

I don’t know about any of you readers out there (if there are any : > ), but I’m getting a little tired of writing about the Diamonds remix. However, I think that if I explore some other aspects of the song, I’ll be able to shake off that boringness and keep this Grammy-winning song fresh and interesting.

Today, let’s talk about intertextuality. Although we can say that the Diamonds remix is one “text” (by “text” I mean one unified piece of work, or a song), we can also say that the Diamonds “text/song” is always already composed of multiple “texts.” Kanye’s MC-ing can be considered to be one text, while the sample/beat that the song employs can be considered as another text. I would like to examine how these two texts work with each other and how the song’s combination of these two texts creates/affects the song’s meaning or message. Thus, I want to talk about the “intertexuality” of the song (”inter” is a prefix that means “together” or “between”). And after reading this post, maybe you can add your own “text” in response to my “text.” And then we can have a conversation about this blog’s intertextuality. But I digress…

I’ve spent a lot of time (perhaps too much ; >) talking about Kanye West’s lyrics, so today let’s start by talking about the other dominant text in the song: the musical beat. The musical beat is also composed of multiple texts (the synthesizers, the drums, etc.), but let’s focus on the musical beat’s use of a sound clip from Shirley Bassey’s song “Diamonds Are Forever.”

“Diamonds Are Forever” was preformed by Bassey, the wildly popular singer from Wales, for the soundtrack of the eponymous James Bond film, “Diamonds Are Forever,” released in 1971. The song, somewhat ironically, compares men to diamonds, holding the latter up as a representation of everything that men (or sexual relationships with men) cannot promise. Unlike men, diamonds can satisfy a woman. Kanye West’s song uses the first verse of the song, as well as the chorus (”Diamonds are forever”). However, as we’ve already discussed, West isn’t talking about men here; he’s talking about, among many things, the problematics of the bling bling culture that diamonds tend to symbolize in certain spheres society, including certain spheres of hip hop culture.

And that is exactly, in my opinion, what the sample brings to the song. By using the Bassey chorus, West testifies to the fact that diamonds-as-status-symbols have been used carelessly and without a critical eye by white people ever since diamonds were first discovered and marketed. In addition to bling bling, the sample also connects other stereotypical aspects of hip hop culture to dominant white Anglo-European culture.

Let’s do some brainstorming here…

What are some of the white-controlled, media-driven stereotypes of hip hop culture? Heterosexism? Misogyny? An obsession with sexuality? Arbitrary or savage violence? Dominant masculinity? An obsession with power? An obsession with wealth, fancy cars, quality booze, and weapons?

Can you tell where I’m going with this?

Shaken, Not Stirred

Now, all of those stereotypes that I just listed can be easily found in any James Bond film, not to mention the overall emphasis that is place on these things by the entire collection of Bond movies! And how often does James Bond come under the critical eye of the white media? Probably not as often as hip hop does…

But, like I said before, West isn’t simply say’n, “See, white boys enjoy all this things too, so it’s okay for some hip hoppas to glorify these same things.” No, West is tell’n us that we all have to look critically at the “diamonds” in our own life, or the things that we glorify without thinking about the consequences of our glorification of them.

West’s lyrics and the Shirely Bassey sample force the careful listener to think about how the combination of these two texts creates a whole new meaning that is different from the meaning that is expressed in each individual text. In his lyrics, West is thinking critically about the diamonds he owns, but when we hear Shirely Bassey singing soulfully/sexually about the diamonds that she owns, the listener is also encouraged to think about the “diamonds” of white culture and how all of these diamonds are part of a similar system.

Teachers in the liberal arts and sciences fields should, like Kanye, encourage their students to examine the intertextuality of seemingly unified “texts.” The text might be Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, or an historical event like the Civil War, or an old fable. It doesn’t really matter. For the Austen novel, we can think about the historical texts that the novel ignores. One of my favorite English professors at U.I.U.C. once asked the class, “That Bennet girl likes to show off her skills on the piano in order to get attract her man and prove that she is a member of ‘high society,’ but where do you think those pretty piano keys come from? They are made out of ivory from elephant tusks, which come from Africa and were brought to England via colonialism. When Miss Bennet plays the piano, it must be very hard for her not to get her fingers bloody!”

(Sub)texts like colonialism may be hidden in seemingly unified texts, from James Bond films to historical accounts to hip hop songs, but that doesn’t mean that they are not there and are not important to the meaning that we gain from the text. Indeed, they are actually integral parts of the text’s meaning.

When teachers encourage students to examine the various (sub)texts that they see in a certain text, the act of learning becomes an activity that both teacher and student take part in. Instead of presenting the student with “right” or “wrong” answers, the teacher gets to explore various (sub)texts alongside the student, all the while letting the student take charge of his or her own education, letting the student take ownership of his or her own thoughts, language, and power.

The Diamonds remix can be a great gateway into the complexities of intertextuality for many students; and it is a gateway that many students,as well as teachers, might find fun to walk through.

“If we espouse the belief that each student must be able to read for understanding, think critically, problem solve and reason; if we espouse a focus on developing the literacy skills of each student; and if choose to engage marginalized students who are our most reluctant readers, then we need to incorporate hip-hop into our curriculum as a valid form of written, linguistic, and aesthetic art. Analysis of hip-hop, both critical and affirming, must become an integral part of our classrooms.”

Camilla Greene, in “Hip Hop: A Crucial Addition to the Curriculum” (2006)

Before we continue with our discussion of Kanye West’s song, I think it would be best to take what we’ve learned and try to apply it to a new context. I suggest reading the previous two posts first, in case you haven’t. Regardless, we can sum up West’s message using one of the lines from the remix of Diamonds from Sierra Leone:

“Though it’s thousands of miles away / Sierra Leone connect to what we go through today.”

The World Is Not Flat

Now, let’s replace “Sierra Leone” with the Middle East and Islamist terrorism. And let’s replace “what we go through today” with “the history of the United States of America.”

So we get an idea that goes something like this: Though it’s thousands of miles away, the Middle East and it’s history is strongly connected to the history of the U.S., and vice versa.

But like some bling bling rappers who, unlike Kanye West, don’t think about where their diamonds come from, many U.S. politicans, pundits, and citizens do not try to connect their own lives or histories with the lives and histories of those people whom they see as “others,” or those people whom they perceive to be inferior, irrational, or otherwise opposite to themselves.

For example, George W. Bush, like many conservatives (other than Ron Paul) and liberals (other than Ralph Nader), has made the claim that terrorists are simply “evil-doers.” He, like many others, does not stop to think about how the history of U.S. foreign policy has shaped the circumstances in the Middle East–circumstances that have contributed to the rise of extremism and extremists, like bin Laden. I’m not saying that bin Laden isn’t a terrible person; I’m just saying that, whether we like it or not, the U.S. has played a major role in creating bin Laden as well as the “evil” that he represents in so many Americans’ minds. I’ll explain more in a bit.

But first, let’s not just pick on Dubya. Let’s turn our critical eye towards Thomas L.

He's Not Being Ironic; He Believes It

Friedman, a modestly liberal New York Times editorial commentator and the author of The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. Like Mr. Bush, Friedman pays little attention to the history of the 20th and 19th centuries.

But how can you write a “brief history” of the 21st century without considering the past centuries? This disregard for history is apparent in both his book and many of his op ed articles.

In one op ed piece, Friedman declares that Islamist terrorism is a “Muslim Problem” which requires a “Muslim Solution.” In more recent piece, he argues that “the Arab-Muslim world in too many places has been failing at modernity, and were it not for $120-a-barrel oil, that failure would be even more obvious.” So, he’s basically saying that the Arab-Muslim world is solely responsible for Islamist terrorism and the regions lack of status as a “modern” nation.

Kanye West might say, “wait a minute, let’s think about how the troubles in the Middle East connect to American lives and American history.”

1.) The U.S. sent massive amounts of material and financial support to the mujahideen during the Cold War’s battles over Afghanistan. And guess who was there for the free training and subsequent legendary status? Bin Laden, of course. To say the least, U.S. vs. Soviet fighting effectively tore the country apart.

Rumsfeld and Hussein December, 1983

2.) The U.S. has a long history of supporting undemocratic, violent, and repressive dictators, who tend to prevent Western forms of “modernity” from reaching the masses. Read the history of Saudi Arabia (whom we depend on for oil) and Iraq (whom we previously depended on to keep the Iranians in a constant state of destructive war; read the history of the Iraq-Iranian War). And let’s not forget about U.S.’s alliances with multiple Pakistani dictators throughout the Cold War. And while were at it, let’s wave farewell to Bush-backed Musharraf.

3.) And let’s not forget about the U.S.’s longstanding support of Israel, which has proven itself to be not only a good customer of the arms industry, but also a good card to play for politicians who desire support from Israeli sympathizers and anti-Muslim hawks. Too bad there aren’t many powerful Palestinian sympathizers in the U.S.; things might have been vastly different if there was a large constituency of Palestinians living in the U.S.

Didn't Jesus Say Something About Leading By Example?

But, in my opinion, it’s not even the U.S.’s support for Israel (by “support” I mean supplying Israel with vast military power and condoning its nuclear arsenal) that has provided the “sea” of anti-American sentiment for bin Laden and company to “swim” in. Instead, it’s mainly the fact that many Middle Eastern countries have had to accommodate and confront the consequences of the vast Palestinian diaspora population. The U.S. supported Israel, but did not even think about the regional instability that that support would generate. Bin Laden, however, is one of the products of that regional instability.

So, terrorism is not just a Muslim problem, and it’s not simply the fault of the U.S.’s involvement in the Middle East. Instead, like the blood diamond industry, it is a global problem, which will require global solutions.

If Kanye West can connect Chi-Town (Illinois) to Freetown (capital of Sierra Leone), then I think we all can try to connect Washington to Kabul, New York to Riyadh, and Los Angels to Tel Aviv, even though these cities are separated by thousands of miles.

While some of the lobes in Thomas Friedman’s brain might be flat, the world is certainly not a flat place. As a result, there are no easy answers to the question of how we (wherever we are) influence the lives of people around the world; and we, in turn, can’t really be sure about how they influence us.

But the least we can do is to think globally and locally, and to act locally and globally. In this day and age, we can’t afford to do any less.

Links:

This is a great article (albeit 3 years old) on the subject of Friedman’s Muslim Problem, which was written by one of my favorite history professors. Check it out.

In the remix of “Diamonds from Sierra Leone,” Kanye opens the song with a couple of powerful lines: “Good morning, this ain’t Vietnam stillpeople lose hands, legs, arms for real / Little was known of Sierra Leone / and how it connects to the diamonds we own.”

First, he’s not only asking his listeners to open their eyes (”good morning”); he is also asking himself to wake up from self-centered world of the original song. But he’s not just ask’n people to get outta bed; he’s asking them to see the world in a different light, to see something through a different perspective.

Instead of imagining “Vegas on acid,” West is asking us to look at Sierra Leone, an important site of the old slave trade and, during the twentieth century, a site of war crimes and labor exploitation. Although the slave trade might be long gone, the diamonds from Sierra Leone follow a path across the Atlantic that is similar to that of the slaves. But these diamonds, unlike the slaves, are ending up in the hands of everyone on the other side of the Atlantic, both wealthy white and wealthy blacks.

"Though it's thousands of miles away"

West insists that, like the master/slave relationship, the relationship between diamonds and their owners is multifaceted. In the case of slavery, the master not only used the slave to work the plantation and produce wealth, but also exploited the slave for his (the master’s) own psychological benefit. The master was able to see himself as a human as long as he de-humanized the slave. In other words, the master could see himself as a “master” as long as there were “slaves” under his control. When West talks about the “diamonds that we own,” he is not simply talking about the ownership of diamonds and the social status that these diamonds represent. He is also talking about the diamonds “we on.” The pun doesn’t quite work when speaking the lines in white english, but when West raps the line, its double meaning hits home. We not only “own” diamonds, but we’re also “on” diamonds. In other words, he’s say’n that we use diamonds like we use drugs, as a means of psychologically making ourselves feel better about our place in society–to make us feel like we are the “masters” of society. And those that mine the diamonds in Africa, or those that cannot conspicusouly display their wealth in America, are the inferiors.

Religion has always played a role in (neo)colonialism

Spit’n sparkling imagery, West gets to the heart of his struggle: “I thought my Jesus piece was so harmless / ’til I seen a picture of a shorty armless / And here’s the conflict: / It’s in a black persons soul to rock that gold / Spend ya whole life try’na get that ice / On a polo rugby it look so nice / How could somethin so wrong make me feel so right, right?”

West’s criticism of bling contrasts with his attitudes toward bling in the original song. In the original, he feels that “diamonds,” or the material culture that they represent, are his just rewards for hard work and determination. In the remix, he asks himself if these are really the things he wants. Indeed, in the remix, he not only questions the diamond industry, but also challenges his own position within that industry and within a highly commercial society. He asks himself: can I really do something that I now know is wrong, even though it feels right and society is tell’n me that it’s ok?

He offers a realistic answer, basically say’n, “I don’t know, that’s a tough question, but at least I’m ask’n myself the question.” By not giving us an easy answer (such as, “screw diamonds, I’m getting rid of all my diamonds!”), West draws our attention to the strength of the societal forces that drive America’s addiction to diamonds and other similar luxury commodities. Like any drug addict will tell you, it’s hard to get of the junk no matter how much you know it’s kill’n you. And, perhaps, it’s equally hard to get out of a luxury-obsessed society after you’ve been born into, raised, and supported by that same society. But, like all of us should be, West is disturbed by his position as an advocate and consumer of diamonds. Even though he might not be ready to take on the diamond industry, he has developed a critical consciousness of his own commercial consumption, and this might be the start of political action, not just for West, but for his listeners too.

In the end, West tells us that we need to be real about the historical, social, and political processes that connect Sierra Leone to the diamonds we own.

Like all good teachers, West doesn’t come out and say, “Stop buying diamonds!” or “You’re perpetuating a system of labor exploitation that is similar to the slave trade!” Instead, he gives us two similar songs that contain vastly different messages, showing us how he personally came to see diamonds (and everything that they represent) from a different perspective. Leading by example, Kanye investigated the history of Sierre Leone, saw how it connected to the culture that he is a part of, and faced the moral questions that his investigation has presented him with. Like West, we all need to face these moral questions on our own. That’s not to say that discussions with others won’t help us (in fact, discussions with others are a crucial part of answering moral questions that pertain to society); instead, it means that we have the agency, as individuals, to make individual choices that reflect our personal answers to these moral questions. West’s song reflects the feminist maxim “the personal is political,” asking us all to come to our own conclusions, but also reminding us that whatever decision we make will ultimately have political and social consequences.

So be real, think on it, and know your role.

A Rough Diamond

Although I want to talk about the remix of Kanye West’s politically conscious hit song “Diamonds from Sierra Leone,” it might be best to check out the original version too if we want to think about the pedagogy expressed by ‘Ye in these songs.

The original version of the track is fairly self-centered, as Mr. West mainly raps about his “arrival” at fame and fortune. He contrasts a vision of Las Vegas “seen through Yves St. Laurent glasses” with his images of his earlier life, before he hooked up with Jay Z, when he “couldn’t afford a Ford Escort or even a four-track recorder,” arguing convincingly that he deserves the rewards—money, respect, acclaim—that American society has to offer to those who pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Indeed, the city of Las Vegas is a pretty good metaphor for the type of rewards that he claims he is after. However, the middle song’s first verse—trapped between the line about Vegas and the line about smoking, drinking, and partying that closes the verse—is full of self-reflexive anxiety. Ye’ worries about the smack-talking magazines and the critics, eventually trying to brush his shoulders off and get back to the party.

"Imagine, Vegas on Acid"

But the other verses of the song return to the theme of his own self-perception vs. the media’s representation of him. He tries to come to terms with the massive shadow of his mentor, Jay-Z. He tries to silence any rumors that his relationship with other hip hoppas is on the rocks. And he, once again, affirms that he is his own man, “with the power to make a diamond from his bare hands.” In other words, he argues that he deserves the diamonds that he wears on his watch because of the hard work that he has put in to make “diamond” hit songs. Perhaps he also thinks that he is a diamond in the making, or an artist that will eventually outshine the competition.

The Student and Teacher

So, we have to ask ourselves…

How does this relatively self-centered song evolve into a remix that effectively flips the script, or, in other words, a remix that challenges the self-centeredness of the original?

A remix that self-consciously deconstructs the bling bling culture of some mainstream hip hoppas?

A remix that offers a model for how we all can examine our own lives?

And a remix that connects hip hop culture with different cultures across the globe?

In the next few posts, I’ll offer my own opinion on how the remix accomplishes these things, and I’ll discuss some specific ideas that West challenges with this song. Here’s a preview of what’s to come:

1.) Re-thinking the Diamond: I’m sure most people who have looked at the lyrics of this song already know this, but I’ll talk about how West connects the diamonds that he holds in his hands with the diamonds that were/are the products of colonial/neocolonial violence and exploitation in Africa.

2.) Inter-textuality: Then I’ll talk about how the sample (a “text”) that West uses plays an integral role in his critique of bling bling culture, and how the sample connects the bling bling aspect of some hip hoppas with the bling bling culture of Euro-American society.

3.) Collaboration: Finally, the remix features another voice: Jay Z. Here, I’ll talk about the vocal presence of HOVA on the track, and how it adds another aspect to the song’s self-reflexive critique of individualism and materialism.

Check out the music video for the original version. The visuals reflect the themes of the remix version.

In many ways, this song truly is a diamond.

Welcome to the blog. You can either jump right in or check out the introduction, which you go to by clicking on the link in the box on the right side of the page.