From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: Marky Mark and Calvin Klein (was Re: Scott Masden)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:08:33 GMT

dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>>This is disturbing. Is 'White rapper' an oxymoron?

>Close to it.  Let's just say that someone who pretends to be a rapper
>and is white has a few more credentials to prove before being taken
>seriously.  This guy is just from the same hit engine as NKOTB (don't
>give me this crap about being unaffiliated--he's the brother of one of
>them, and I say that as someone born and bred in Dorchester, home of
>Steve Dyer, Donna Summer, _New Edition_, Marky Mark and NKOTB.)

How many white rappers do you know? The only one's I'd suspect
you know are the media sensations: Marky Mark, Vanilla Ice, and
DJ Jazzy Jeff... er, oops. (now wading into unfamiliar terri-
tory, as rap isn't my forte') What about the Beastie Boys (after
their Fight for your Right to Partay crap had been purged and
they started releasing some stuff that was (I'm guessing) worth
some attention, of course)? What about 3rd Bass? What about
House of Pain (I flinch to cite them, because I've only heard
one song by them, which was a big hit, and they might not be
consistent at all)? It's not fair to equate white with inability
to rap. It's going to look that way because the pap pop white
rappers got more attention from the white media, but then what
about Hammer? DJ Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince? Heavy D and the
Boyz? The Fat Boys? Black people can be crappy rappers too. Are
we dividing along color lines needlessly? I think maybe.

And one of the big things that bothered me about George was one
time in IRC when we were talking and he mentioned that all rap
was sexist and bad music, and wouldn't listen to a thing I said
(ever heard Arrested Development?) to try to explain that it's
pretty unfair to make generalizations that huge. He allowed that
some of the women were acceptable (something I agree with whole-
heartedly), but said that he didn't have to listen to any of it
anymore because he'd heard more than enough of it to know what
it was about. Need I mention that rap is only 10 years old? Isn't
it kind of obvious that it had some infantile stuff that could
very well have been worked out? He wouldn't even listen, though.
It really pissed me off.

>>(and NKOTB
>>was hardly 'exploiting a black art' anyway, unless the boundaries
>>for 'black territory' encompassed a lot more than I'd thought...)

As far as I'm concerned, NKOTB was so white as to not even touch
black roots. Their music was a grotesque emulation, not related
to black music in any real way.

>Well, it's probably seems that way in Nebraska.  NKOTB was simply
>_New Edition_ in white face, and if you don't understand NKOTB's
>black roots, you're not understanding their music and how it's a
>miracle of co-option and assimilation.  Of course, you don't have
>to understand their music to like it: NKOTB was _much_ more lucrative
>than New Edition ever was.  QED.

Fine. Because they're white. What's your point? That the buying
public is rascist? Wow.

NE and NKOTB were one and the same, fine. But why is NE more acceptable
than NKOTB simply because the NE kids were black? Why can't a white
person with talent explore black roots and artforms? Am I doomed to
emulate Barry Manilow because if I do otherwise I risk appropriating
another culture? Oh, fuck, he's Jewish, isn't he? God, I'm going to
have to be Shaun Cassidy.

>>How often do people other than George flame other people for talking
>>about aesthetics?

>Perhaps as often as people other than Donald Agarrat talk about race
>relations.

Are you saying that talking about race relations and flaming about
aesthetics are equally important pasttimes? Both George and Donald
are talking about minority issues, but I'd have to say that soc.motss
is more in need of racial awareness than aesthetic diversity, and
George goes off on people a lot more often and more virulently than
Donald does, with a lot less justification (see Prince example
below).

>You know, both can be pains in the asses, but they have a
>point to make which gets lost in the assumptions of the majority.
>(I don't mean to trivialize race relations in this comparison; it is
>arguably more pressing and agonizing than an aesthetic of what turns
>people on, I simply wish to use the analogy as a tool.)

It's not really a good one, though. Donald talks about race
relations (among other things, need I add), and there is most
definitely a 'good' side and a 'bad' side to the issue.
George is talking aesthetics, and that's just not cut and dry.
I'm not belittling looksism here, because I see it and try not
to be a perpetrator, but Donald's NWA is infinitely more
respectable to me than George's HGWA.

>>Like Melinda said, it's more like 'Oh no, all that Furr crap again'.
>>And it's because of crap like this. You simply can't talk about
>>what you find attractive without telling people that they should be
>>ashamed of themselves for liking anything other than your ideal. It's
>>sickening, and I really wish you would accept the fact that some
>>people have different tastes than you do and just shut the fuck up
>>and let people think the way they want to.

>The "people have different tastes" claim is really a claim that
>"all gay men have a single taste", which is really the taste of
>Calvin Klein ads, 90210, Melanoma, bad plaster casts of Michel-
>angelo's _David_ in the foyer, and millenia of young beardless
>ephebes.

Well fuck you too. I'm not saying anything like that; you're acting
like I'm into twinks or something. And I'm not; my tastes are a lot
more in line with George than they are with Melmon. But George's
hair supremacy kick is just too much. He's not just raving about
bears; noone minds that, I hope. He's raving, then twink-bashing,
and that's not right, any more than the opposite. I appreciate the
diversity offered by people talking about different types of people,
but I do *not* appreciate people trying to censor other people.

>In such a milieu of shared assumptions, and heavy with
>the institutionalized taste of centuries, why shouldn't there be
>a discordant note sounded from those who feel marginalized?
>"Fine, if they'd only know when to shut up."  Right.  This should
>sound familiar as well.

I'm pretty non-twink in my affections as well, and it still bothers
me. This isn't just someone asserting their tastes, or standing up
for an unpopular choice; it's someone actively insisting that others
accept his as the superior, and being disdainful of anything that's
not related to their tastes. It really got on my nerves, for example,
when George spewed a flame just because me and Sim each posted an
article in which Prince's Sexy MF was mentioned. Prince is hardly
mainstream (though admittedly more than whatever it is George listens
to), but George still felt it was necessary to jump in from out of
nowhere and make it known that Prince was not to his liking, and
(and this is the big thing) went on to bitch about Prince's song-
writing ability and talent. There was absolutely no reason for him
to do that; argumentativeness could cover it, but it's hardly a
reason. We weren't acting like everyone *had* to like Prince;
we didn't even indicate that we did.
And he does the same thing with looks. When it would be fine to
assert or display or proclaim affection for a certain type of man,
he goes beyond that to flaunting scorn for anyone who isn't that
type. He's talked about how awful shaving is, and that's not
exactly a mainstream fetish (well, I guess in a way it is, but
for him to act like FWA is Uncle Tom for his smoothness is pushing
things beyond the scope of reality).
In short, he's needlessly hurting people that don't necessarily
deserve it just because some people do. Sure, people are all
looksist to some extent, but he's being more antagonistic than
anyone *I* know. I know people who go eww at a hairy/older/what-
ever guy, but they don't shun me for liking him. George does.

>I am happy when everyone expresses an opinion, including when
>people like George and BBC do as well.  That's not to say that
>inconsistencies shouldn't be pointed out (Steve Arrants's comments
>on BBC's reaction to MM if he were bearded and covered with fur
>is a case in point.)

But George squelches the opinions of others more than he actually
voices his own. It's not like soc.motss is bear-unfriendly; I'd
like it a lot less if it were. People sure as hell don't go ick
every time someone talks about a furry guy. The only time this
happens is when someone acts like there is no other option than
fur. When they do things like that, they deserve to be flamed,
just as people do when they pretend twinks make the world go
around.

John, thinking he makes sense here, and hoping Steve'll help
him understand if he's overlooking something important

--
John Dorrance        * Sexyfunky Motherfuckerdiva *   thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu

		I bet if you threw that ass into the air
			It'd turn into sunshine!
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general