On McWhorter, Hip-Hop, and Race

I've had a few hours to think about the exchange between Coates and McWhorter.

To begin with, let me say that it was nice to hear a civil, yet spirited debate between two individuals who obviously sit on opposite sides of the fence as it concerns the issues discussed in their conversation. No personal attacks or mud-slinging, just a respectful exchange of ideas. In terms of the aesthetics of the debate, I believe that style-wise, McWhorter came across as being extremely polished and informed. I don't mean this as a shot against Coates, who held himself well, but McWhorter's academic background showed in the manner in which he spoke. Substantively, however, I can't say that I agreed with much of what McWhorter had to say. In a general sense, my biggest problem with him lies in the fact that an obviously educated man seemed so content to reach for simplistic answers to complex questions. The first instance in which this is evident is when the two are discussing hip-hop as a revolutionary flashpoint; while Coates points out that the distance between an actual revolution and literal one (thus allowing for a lot of middle ground as it pertains to how the genre can affect individuals), McWhorter seems to attack a mindset that I'm not sure is prevalent outside of the black intellectual community. Even then, I would question what serious academic mind truly believes that hip-hop could be (literally) revolutionary. I'm sure that such a state of mind exists, but to hip-hop listeners at large, I'm not sure that it does. Furthermore, I believe that McWhorter makes the mistake of giving us a black and white scenario when one is not necessary; just because hip-hop is held out by some as the revolutionary powder keg does not automatically mean that this is the sole purpose of the music. On a large scale, hip-hop could serve as one of many perspectives on which people view the world, or it could serve as something that individuals use to cope with their daily ills. For the poor--to use an example--Mobb Deep's street depictions could serve as a mirror in which people see themselves and their surroundings, but it doesn't only have to be the backdrop by which those same people institute change. By that same token, just because hip-hop falls short of such a lofty goal does not mean that it can't help poor blacks in some way, given the scenarios I mentioned above. When hip-hop is reduced to these two scenarios, it is easy to dismiss it; however, such a course of action is ultimately useless when considering hip-hop's relevance to the public at large.

Another point is which McWhorter errs is in his critique of hip-hop's confrontational tone. In the first place, to reduce hip-hop to its tone--thus divorcing it of its message--and call this the most attractive element that it has to offer seems obtuse to me. Sure, when we're dealing with younger listeners, the rebellious element does strike a chord. However, again, this seems awfully simplistic for a well-versed scholar. Why? Because I believe that he sells hip-hop listeners short. Since he--by his own volition--took the 50 Cents of the hip-hop landscape out of the equation, he also takes white, suburban listeners out of the equation. This is important because it eliminates the very audience McWhorter indirectly alludes to: those who are taken in by hip-hop's "confrontational cadence." Instead, what's left is a predominantly black audience, and one that I suspect can identify with the images that The Roots and Public Enemy depict in their rhymes. Because of this, I really don't believe that they're taken in by some hip-hop group talking tough on a record; the message, the fact that there's actually a group giving their struggles a voice, is the ultimate winner. Furthermore, to dismiss this message as "a middle finger" and "[saying] more complicated things" is simply a short-sided view to adopt, because it is exactly those "complicated things" that brings in their core audiences. Thirdly, how else is hip-hop supposed to sound? Since we're talking about groups like Public Enemy, wouldn't any other tone actually be inappropriate? PE rapped about the ills of black America, racism, poverty, and discrimination; their message was, "This is what's happening in the black community. Do something about it!" It was supposed to be angry and confrontational. In fact, their message wouldn't have rang true if it wasn't delivered in an angry tone. For McWhorter, I'm not sure why the tone would be a negative; taken to its extreme, it would be understandable, but Public Enemy wasn't an extreme group. Tupac in his pre-1996 days wasn't extreme. They all conveyed the negative aspects of their surroundings and screamed for change.

The next incident occurs when Coates and McWhorter talk race; in fact, the latter's most egregious oversimplification is here, when he emphasizes the importance of the policy changes brought on by the Civil Rights Movement while completely overlooking the emotional significance that it entailed. McWhorter is absolutely right to point out that instituting change is difficult; however, to dismiss an "I Have a Dream" type moment is outright wrong-headed. It ignores common sense to do this; to organize large groups of people like the Civil Right Movement did is difficult to do. Policy change was definitely important, but getting people to march--convincing those people that they were worth fighting for, that they were worthy of being treated equally to whites--was equally important. Malcolm X's greatest impact was that he helped to rebuild the collective self-esteem of the blacks who followed him (and even some who did not). Before you can lead a movement, before you can get people to willingly march and put themselves on harm's way, you must first give those people the self-esteem necessary to do those things. Otherwise, it's just not going to happen. Again, McWhorter is correct to point out that the Civil Rights Movement did hard work, but he fails to realize that each "I Have a Dream" speech, each rally, and each emotional plea, validated the self-worth of black people. These were certainly not side dishes to the main course; they were just as important as the legal and governmental changes the movements brought about.

John's failure to understand Coates' point of view on race is less astonishing, but still indicative of the conservative viewpoint that encompasses his approach to their conversation. From the outset, he attempts to simplify Coates' views as a "bone deep distrust of the white man," as opposed to acknowledging that a person with a different background may react differently to whites. He fails to grasp Coates' point that a black person who grows up in a segregated neighborhood (and thus has little to no exposure to whites) is going to have a distrust and/or fear of whites. Coates is also correct to point out that this fear has certain historical roots; the lynchings of blacks may not play a conscious role in how some blacks view whites, but they most certainly are aware that these things have happened. Perhaps McWhorter grew up in a place where he did not encounter much in the way of racism, but at the very least, it seems as though he should be able to acknowledge that for others, it does exist. For some, racism is a malevolent and predominant force; this may not be the most rational point of view to take, but it is one that exists. The disconnect between John's and Ta-Nehisi's views lies in the fact that while the latter is able to put himself in the shoes of those whom he addresses and defends, the former is unable to do so. McWhorter's viewpoint on race also colors his opinion of Obama as a legitimate candidate, as evident in his stance that his race has played an important factor in his rise to popularity. What he fails to realize is that while he supports Obama, and acknowledges that he is an intelligent and eloquent candidate, he negates all of this by reducing the reason for his candidacy to race. This is the ugly rationale of a Rush Limbaugh, or an Ann Coulter, not of a scholar; Obama's race--particular his upbringing--does lend him an exotic air that intrigues the public. However, it is irresponsible to throw out a claim like this, not when it is so difficult to prove. How would one go about proving it? Such an analysis ignores other forces that have helped Obama, such as his taking a page from Howard Dean's playbook and getting a grassroots internet following; the media's putting he and Hillary Clinton as the two top candidates in the Democratic primaries (which thus left John Edwards as the third wheel); Obama's efficacy in running his campaign and the crucial errors made by Hillary's camp (I'm looking at you, Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro). In one way, I'm happy that such a discussion took place because I got to see a young man who--while still obviously growing--was able to convey his opinions and display a level of maturity beyond his years. In another way, it disheartens me that his counterpart, a scholar with the benefits of age and experience, has such a rudimentary understanding of issues that are obviously complex.

Then again, no one sane would ever claim that older people are automatically more intelligent, would they?