[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]

Login:
Password:
New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS · Profile · Logout
  • Page 1 of 1
  • 1
Forum moderator: s0dr2, El_Matador  
Saul Williams: An Open Letter To Oprah
eboyd Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 9:15 AM | Message # 1

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
I think this is a bit old but if old news is new to you then it is new news, no? :D

Anyways, this is just wonderful. Unfortunately I think Oprah just subtlely disregarded him >( :

"An Open Letter to Oprah

Dear Ms. Winfrey,

It is with the greatest respect and adoration of your loving spirit that I write you. As a young child, I would sit beside my mother everyday and watch your program. As a young adult, with children of my own, I spend much less time in front of the television, but I am ever thankful for the positive effect that you continue to have on our nation, history and culture. The example that you have set as someone unafraid to answer their calling, even when the reality of that calling insists that one self-actualize beyond the point of any given example, is humbling, and serves as the cornerstone of the greatest faith. You, love, are a pioneer.

I am a poet.

Growing up in Newburgh, NY, with a father as a minister and a mother as a school teacher, at a time when we fought for our heroes to be nationally recognized, I certainly was exposed to the great names and voices of our past. I took great pride in competing in my churches Black History Quiz Bowl and the countless events my mother organized in hopes of fostering a generation of youth well versed in the greatness as well as the horrors of our history. Yet, even in a household where I had the privilege of personally interacting with some of the most outspoken and courageous luminaries of our times, I must admit that the voices that resonated the most within me and made me want to speak up were those of my peers, and these peers were emcees. Rappers..Yes, Ms. Winfrey, I am what my generation would call "a Hip Hop head." Hip Hop has served as one of the greatest aspects of my self-definition. Lucky for me, I grew up in the 80's when groups like Public Enemy, Rakim, The jungle Brothers, Queen Latifah, and many more realized the power of their voices within the artform and chose to create music aimed at the upliftment of our generation.

As a student at Morehouse College where I studied Philosophy and Drama I was forced to venture across the street to Spelman College for all of my Drama classes, since Morehouse had no theater department of its own. I had few complaints. The performing arts scholarship awarded me by Michael Jackson had promised me a practically free ride to my dream school, which now had opened the doors to another campus that could make even the most focused of young boys dreamy, Spelman. One of my first theater professors, Pearle Cleage, shook me from my adolescent dream state. It was the year that Dr. Dre's "The Chronic" was released and our introduction to Snoop Dogg as he sang catchy hooks like "Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks…" Although, it was a playwriting class, what seemed to take precedence was Ms. Cleages political ideology, which had recently been pressed and bound in her 1st book, Mad at Miles. As, you know, in this book she spoke of how she could not listen to the music of Miles Davis and his muted trumpet without hearing the muted screams of the women that he was outspoken about "man-handling". It was my first exposure to the idea of an artist being held accountable for their actions outside of their art. It was the first time I had ever heard the word, "misogyny". And as Ms. Cleage would walk into the classroom fuming over the women she would pass on campus, blasting those Snoop lyrics from their cars and jeeps, we, her students, would be privy to many freestyle rants and raves on the dangers of nodding our heads to a music that could serve as our own demise.

Her words, coupled with the words of the young women I found myself interacting with forever changed how I listened to Hip Hop and quite frankly ruined what would have been a number of good songs for me. I had now been burdened with a level of awareness that made it impossible for me to enjoy what the growing masses were ushering into the mainstream. I was now becoming what many Hip Hop heads would call "a Backpacker", a person who chooses to associate themselves with the more "conscious" or politically astute artists of the Hip Hop community. What we termed as "conscious" Hip Hop became our preference for dance and booming systems. Groups like X-Clan, A Tribe Called Quest, Brand Nubian, Arrested Development, Gangstarr and others became the prevailing music of our circle. We also enjoyed the more playful Hip Hop of De La Soul, Heiroglyphics, Das FX, Organized Konfusion. Digable Planets, The Fugees, and more. We had more than enough positivity to fixate on. Hip Hop was diverse.I had not yet begun writing poetry. Most of my friends hardly knew that I had been an emcee in high school. I no longer cared to identify myself as an emcee and my love of oratory seemed misplaced at Morehouse where most orators were actually preachers in training, speaking with the Southern drawl of Dr. King although they were 19 and from the North. I spent my time doing countless plays and school performances. I was in line to become what I thought would be the next Robeson, Sidney, Ossie, Denzel, Snipes… It wasn't until I was in graduate school for acting at NYU that I was invited to a poetry reading in Manhattan where I heard Asha Bandele, Sapphire, Carl Hancock Rux, Reggie Gaines, Jessica Care Moore, and many others read poems that sometimes felt like monologues that my newly acquired journal started taking the form of a young poets'. Yet, I still noticed that I was a bit different from these poets who listed names like: Audre Lorde, June Jordan, Sekou Sundiata etc, when asked why they began to write poetry. I knew that I had been inspired to write because of emcees like Rakim, Chuck D, LL, Run DMC… Hip Hop had informed my love of poetry as much or even more than my theater background which had exposed me to Shakespeare, Baraka, Fugard, Genet, Hansberry and countless others. In those days, just a mere decade ago, I started writing to fill the void between what I was hearing and what I wished I was hearing. It was not enough for me to critique the voices I heard blasting through the walls of my Brooklyn brownstone. I needed to create examples of where Hip Hop, particularly its lyricism, could go. I ventured to poetry readings with my friends and neighbors, Dante Smith (now Mos Def), Talib Kwele, Erycka Badu, Jessica Care Moore, Mums the Schemer, Beau Sia, Suheir Hammad…all poets that frequented the open mics and poetry slams that we commonly saw as "the other direction" when Hip hop reached that fork in the road as you discussed on your show this past week. On your show you asked the question, "Are all rappers poets?" Nice. I wanted to take the opportunity to answer this question for you.

The genius, as far as the marketability, of Hip Hop is in its competitiveness. Its roots are as much in the dignified aspects of our oral tradition as it is in the tradition of "the dozens" or "signifying". In Hip Hop, every emcee is automatically pitted against every other emcee, sort of like characters with super powers in comic books. No one wants to listen to a rapper unless they claim to be the best or the greatest. This sort of braggadocio leads to all sorts of tirades, showdowns, battles, and sometimes even deaths. In all cases, confidence is the ruling card. Because of the competitive stance that all emcees are prone to take, they, like soldiers begin to believe that they can show no sign of vulnerability. Thus, the most popular emcees of our age are often those that claim to be heartless or show no feelings or signs of emotion. The poet, on the other hand, is the one who realizes that their vulnerability is their power. Like you, unafraid to shed tears on countless shows, the poet finds strength in exposing their humanity, their vulnerability, thus making it possible for us to find connection and strength through their work. Many emcees have been poets. But, no, Ms. Winfrey, not all emcees are poets. Many choose gangsterism and business over the emotional terrain through which true artistry will lead. But they are not to blame. I would now like to address your question of leadership.You may recall that in immediate response to the attacks of September 11th, our president took the national stage to say to the American public and the world that we would "…show no sign of vulnerability". Here is the same word that distinguishes poets from rappers, but in its history, more accurately, women from men. To make such a statement is to align oneself with the ideology that instills in us a sense of vulnerability meaning "weakness". And these meanings all take their place under the heading of what we consciously or subconsciously characterize as traits of the feminine. The weapon of mass destruction is the one that asserts that a holy trinity would be a father, a male child, and a ghost when common sense tells us that the holiest of trinities would be a mother, a father, and a child: Family. The vulnerability that we see as weakness is the saving grace of the drunken driver who because of their drunken/vulnerable state survives the fatal accident that kills the passengers in the approaching vehicle who tighten their grip and show no physical vulnerability in the face of their fear. Vulnerability is also the saving grace of the skate boarder who attempts a trick and remembers to stay loose and not tense during their fall. Likewise, vulnerability has been the saving grace of the African American struggle as we have been whipped, jailed, spat upon, called names, and killed, yet continue to strive forward mostly non-violently towards our highest goals. But today we are at a crossroads, because the institutions that have sold us the crosses we wear around our necks are the most overt in the denigration of women and thus humanity. That is why I write you today, Ms. Winfrey. We cannot address the root of what plagues Hip Hop without addressing the root of what plagues today's society and the world.

You see, Ms. Winfrey, at it's worse; Hip Hop is simply a reflection of the society that birthed it. Our love affair with gangsterism and the denigration of women is not rooted in Hip Hop; rather it is rooted in the very core of our personal faith and religions. The gangsters that rule Hip Hop are the same gangsters that rule our nation. 50 Cent and George Bush have the same birthday (July 6th). For a Hip Hop artist to say "I do what I wanna do/Don't care if I get caught/The DA could play this mothaf@kin tape in court/I'll kill you/ I ain't playin'" epitomizes the confidence and braggadocio we expect an admire from a rapper who claims to represent the lowest denominator. When a world leader with the spirit of a cowboy (the true original gangster of the West: raping, stealing land, and pillaging, as we clapped and cheered.) takes the position of doing what he wants to do, regardless of whether the UN or American public would take him to court, then we have witnessed true gangsterism and violent negligence. Yet, there is nothing more negligent than attempting to address a problem one finds on a branch by censoring the leaves. Name calling, racist generalizations, sexist perceptions, are all rooted in something much deeper than an uncensored music. Like the rest of the world, I watched footage on AOL of you dancing mindlessly to 50 Cent on your fiftieth birthday as he proclaimed, "I got the ex/if you're into taking drugs/ I'm into having ???/ I ain't into making love" and you looked like you were having a great time. No judgment. I like that song too. Just as I do, James Brown's ??? Machine or Grand Master Flashes "White Lines". ???, drugs, and rock and roll is how the story goes. Censorship will never solve our problems. It will only foster the sub-cultures of the underground, which inevitably inhabit the mainstream. There is nothing more mainstream than the denigration of women as projected through religious doctrine. Please understand, I am by no means opposing the teachings of Jesus, by example (he wasn't Christian), but rather the men that have used his teachings to control and manipulate the masses. Hip Hop, like Rock and Roll, like the media, and the government, all reflect an idea of power that labels vulnerability as weakness. I can only imagine the non-emotive hardness that you have had to show in order to secure your empire from the grips of those that once stood in your way: the old guard. You reflect our changing times. As time progresses we sometimes outgrow what may have served us along the way. This time, what we have outgrown, is not hip hop, rather it is the festering remnants of a God depicted as an angry and jealous male, by men who were angry and jealous over the minute role that they played in the everyday story of creation. I am sure that you have covered ideas such as these on your show, but we must make a connection before our disconnect proves fatal.

We are a nation at war. What we fail to see is that we are fighting ourselves. There is no true hatred of women in Hip Hop. At the root of our nature we inherently worship the feminine. Our overall attention to the nurturing guidance of our mothers and grandmothers as well as our ideas of what is sexy and beautiful all support this. But when the idea of the feminine is taken out of the idea of what is divine or sacred then that worship becomes objectification. When our governed morality asserts that a woman is either a virgin or a whore, then our understanding of sexuality becomes warped. Note the dangling platinum crosses over the bare asses being smacked in the videos. The emcees of my generation are the ministers of my father's generation. They too had a warped perspective of the feminine. Censoring songs, sermons, or the tirades of radio personalities will change nothing except the format of our discussion. If we are to sincerely address the change we are praying for then we must first address to whom we are praying.

Thank you, Ms. Winfrey, for your forum, your heart, and your vision. May you find the strength and support to bring about the changes you wish to see in ways that do more than perpetuate the myth of enmity.

In loving kindness,

Saul Williams"

http://us.collect.myspace.cn/index.c....5558256


my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

YANHAP1 Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 9:18 AM | Message # 2

DJs
Posts: 337
Reputation: 0
Offline
Yeah i remember this...represent with eloquence.

Good post.


who killed bambi?

eboyd Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 9:56 AM | Message # 3

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
Np man, thx. I just wish Oprah would ackowledge this. Apparently her bias won't let her though. >( She's almost as bad with her bias against hip hop as Steve Harvey is in his bigotry against atheists.

But yeah, the one argument I have against this -- and this isn't my own idea, it was brought up in the comments section at a blog -- is his idea of the holy trinity. He paints this picture of the trinity as Man: the stern law giver, Woman: the nurturing home keeper, and child: the naïve and innocent that will someday be the men and women of this world. If this is the case this somewhat contradicts his idea of women being subjugated to the "weak and vulnerable" stereotype. Granted, he did say that we need to understand as a society that vulnerability is not weakness, and those of us who are intelligent enough know that vulnerability truly is power, but as a society we are not going to change this social norm over night and Saul knows this. Because of this, and probably even regardless, this trinity he creates simply further perpetuates our stereotypes and actually quite possibly puts us more into a box; what other tradition puts us as people in a box more obviously than the concept of the "traditional family"? Why do we need to keep this ideology and hold it sacred? Yes, I have a girlfriend and I do wish to have children with her and get married to her some day and I hope for our relationship to last until the end of our days, but who is to tell the mormon with 4 wives, the gay couple, the single parent, the single man or woman who likes to have a good time, etc., that they are wrong; That their way of viewing relationships is askew and not sacred while ours is the most sacred of traditions and they need to get on our page? Who is going to tell that to the black widow who eats the male that impregnates her before her young are born? Who is going to tell that to the many animals who abandon their young by instinct very early in their development? Is he implying that humans are superior to animals? Isn't that along the same lines of what Saul Williams is upset with religion about on the topic of females? I'm sure he agrees with this and didn't mean for his message to come out that way to his readers, but his message needs to be clear about that. Still a wonderful letter and it makes many points that needed to be made. If Oprah actually read this, she would have to either use her bias to disregard it and never give it a second thought or change her perspective on the subject entirely.


my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

YANHAP1 Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 11:11 AM | Message # 4

DJs
Posts: 337
Reputation: 0
Offline
Quote (eboyd)
Why do we need to keep this ideology and hold it sacred?

Strong family makes for strong community, given that we are social animals it's the formula that has brought our species most success.That in itself (the model) does not judge other lifestyles and was existant in Matriarchal societies also.It would be wrong to attack the unit rather than the ideas that use its percieved status for other devisive means.

Quote (eboyd)
If this is the case this somewhat contradicts his idea of women being subjugated to the "weak and vulnerable" stereotype. Granted, he did say that we need to understand as a society that vulnerability is not weakness, and those of us who are intelligent enough know that vulnerability truly is power

Quote (eboyd)
Yes, I have a girlfriend and I do wish to have children with her and get married to her some day and I hope for our relationship to last until the end of our days, but who is to tell the mormon with 4 wives, the gay couple, the single parent, the single man or woman who likes to have a good time, etc., that they are wrong; That their way of viewing relationships is askew and not sacred while ours is the most sacred of traditions and they need to get on our page? Who is going to tell that to the black widow who eats the male that impregnates her before her young are born?

These are not the issues he is trying to address and as such is not, explicitly at least, judging these relationships.
He has had more than enough trouble trying to maintain his own!

So Oprah didn't respond?

Wow .....someone shut her the fuck up!!!!


who killed bambi?

abanks47 Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 1:52 PM | Message # 5

Emcees
Posts: 1466
Reputation: 0
Offline
^^word, i'd like to know her thoughts on this. good post. I was a little taken back when he said not all rappers are poets, I agree to a certain extent but part of me feels that its just another type of poetry. just as he mentioned rakim and public enemy were his inspirations, could not pimps and crackheads be inspiration to someone else? might be putting to much thought into it. regardless im glad hes on hip hops side

A WELL DRESSED SKELETON SLOWLY CUTS YOUR THROAT.

"I Have No Fear Whatsoever of Anybody or Anything" -Malcolm X

“those who consider themselves the most adamant adherents of “real” hip-hop can also be the least knowledgeable.” –Adilifu Nama; an excert from his perception of Nas’s “Genesis”

eboyd Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 3:14 PM | Message # 6

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
As a poet myself I do not consider all rappers or emcees to be poets either, sorry. There is just a certain direction, skill level and skill set that poets tap into and I do not see most emcees, or especially rappers, go in thay direction. You don't necessarily need to write about "good" things (does that word even mean anything concrete?) to be a poet, but there is quite a distinct difference between a poet, like TS Eliot, Lord Tennyson, Frost, Keats, Keating, Donne, etc., and most emcees, and even between the likes of Saul, and even Talib, Common and Mos, that seperates them from your average emcee. They aren't necessarily better, maybe better at what they do, but they are very distinctly different from, say, a Snoop Dogg or even a Rakim, Chuck D, etc. Part of that difference is, in fact, that poets recognize that vulnerability is power. Some emcees realize this too and many times they get labeled a poet. There are also specific skill sets, especially referring to the technical side of writing, that emcees tend to neglect though, again, there are exceptions. But when it comes down to it, you may be an emcee yet not a poet and possess several of the traits of a poet, but just not enough to be considered one. Some are poets but aren't very skilled poets. Tbh, as someone who studies poetry, from what I have heard from 2pac, Mos Talib, etc., but not Saul, I consider to be in the range of poorly written to decent poetry. Talib can write some pretty good stuff, like "Heaven and Hell", but even that, when critically studied, isn't quite reaching it. Musicians tend to not make great poets, with a few exceptions like Saul. Even Jim Morrison, who is considered to a generation one of the best to mix poetry and music ever, "couldn't get the beat out of his head" as I have often heard, and that is the problem with most musicians who try to cross over. They try harder to fit the rhythm than write the poem and it often plagues their work.

YANHAP, I know that the traditional family structure is a strong structure and has been since it's inception, and I know this wasn't really Saul's point, and as I said, I wish he would make it a bit more clear that he doesn't think it is the only way because when you make something sacred you put it on a certain pedestal and that isn't always warranted, like in this case, in my opinion. Here's my point though. The nurturing child bearer and stern law giver as mother and father respectively perpetuates the patriarchal society that Saul so vehemently condemns. It obviously places the male as the enforcer while the woman is the person who is there to back up the man's rules, yet create a sort of security blanket between the enforced and enforcer and she is also often the enforced party as well. The reason for this is that the traditional family, though initially based on secular values, was taken over some time ago as a religious entity, hence my use of the term sacred. Marriage was actually initially forbidden by the Roman Catholic church because it would potentially get in the way of the individual's love of Jesus Christ, but, as time went on the church recognized the necessity for it and made it one of their biggest businesses and part of the reason the church is so powerful and successful today. Since then, the family has become a symbol of Christian values in the western world; the father, patriarch of the family, bread winner and king of the household (a position my father explicitly claimed in my youth and he isn't even truly a Christian. He seems to be a bit of an agnostic from the conversations I've had with him), the mother, care giver and up keeper of the household, and child, product of the mother and father and innocent beings filled with love. This is where there "where's my dinner woman?!" attitude that led to misogyny actually came from in the first place. What needs to be made clear is that the mother can be just as much if not more of a bread winner than the father (as is the current status at my house since my father was laid off) and both should be the rule makers and enforcers, not just the father. The responsibility of housekeeping also isn't solely on the mother. Father, mother and child (depending on age) should be equally involved in this, and that is assuming the traditional family ideology to be the only one. Then we add in other variables; the single parent family; the gay or lesbian parents family; the family that I will call the "communal family" in which an entire lineage -- father and mother, their siblings and wives/husbands, and all combined children -- will live in one big house and form one family (many of my Armenian friends live like this and are just as close to uncles, granparents, cousins, etc., as they are to their own immediate family); and with these other variables comes a complete decimation of the values of the traditional family.

If, then, this holy trinity of a traditional family is exactly that, implying that they are sacred and explicitly stating that they are holy, does that make any other family sacrilegious?


my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Menace Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 3:38 PM | Message # 7

Heads
Posts: 6764
Reputation: 0
Offline
YANHAP there is no such thing as traditional family so inherently there is no such thing traditional family structure nor family values these conceptions are relative and depend on the time and place to put an exact label on family structure is complete social absolutism. Traditional families vary from era to era from place to place.


eboyd Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 4:07 PM | Message # 8

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
^^^ good point. I forgot to mention that. Also, the concept of "gender" may simply be a human creation. Anthropologists consider "male and female" not to be absolutes, but rather a spectrum with femininity on one end and masculinity on the other (with Chuck Norris of course at the furthest end of masculinity rofl ), so gender roles, such as those inherent in Saul's trinity, cannot exist because gender doesn't exist. To further my point, think about the ranges of different hormones in boys and girls. Boys tend to get more masculine traits and girls tend to get more feminine traits from their hormones, but the amount of masculinity and femininity each inherit is in it's own unique position on this spectrum. And then there are the fringe individuals; the bisexauals, gays, lesbians, transexuals, and the ambiguous. Then there is the concept of enculturation within this discussion as well which leads back to Menace's point. Certain areas, including certain Indian (not Native American) cities are bisexual in that pleasurable sexual relations occur mainly between same sexes while marriages and sexual relations for purposes of procreation occur, obviously, between man and woman. There is no clear cut "traditional family structure" or "gender roles" because there really is no such thing as gender absulotes.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

eboyd Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 6:40 PM | Message # 9

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
bump

Read it! >(


my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Menace Date: Friday, 06/Nov/09, 7:07 PM | Message # 10

Heads
Posts: 6764
Reputation: 0
Offline
so if i agree whit Penn and Teller at one philosophical aspect so what ?? when it comes to economics and blind support of globalization i don't agree whit Penn and Teller . Socially speaking i agree whit everything they say economically no . Basically that's the whole thing of American so called " libertarianism " socially progressive plus economically conservative in America equals " Libertarianism ".

Watcher Date: Saturday, 07/Nov/09, 3:56 AM | Message # 11

Watchers
I doubt Oprah will ever respond to this. Nonetheless, it's a great read.
YANHAP1 Date: Saturday, 07/Nov/09, 8:53 AM | Message # 12

DJs
Posts: 337
Reputation: 0
Offline
E sometimes you should read things at face value and understand he uses christian symbolism to appeal to Oprahs sensibilities.
The language and analogy are tailord for the recipient and as such do not warrant such a broad digest, as interesting as it is.

Quote (Menace)
to put an exact label on family structure is complete social absolutism

Menace its been a medical thing until recent history, not social absolutism.

Man+Woman=Child.

LMAO!!!!

What happens after is relative, i never mentioned tradition...you express your own agenda.


who killed bambi?

  • Page 1 of 1
  • 1
Search: