My main worry was that I was comparing two black men, Chuck D and Neil deGrasse Tyson, in how each made me feel, and using Chuck D's raps about oppression and fighting back to make me walk taller and gain confidence when I feel intellectually intimidated. I wanted desperately to be very clear that I understand what Chuck D is talking about and am not appropriating his culture in some weird misunderstanding. It seemed a very privilegey line to walk. I compare their oratory styles, and didn't want to wander into the "my, isn't he articulate" territory.
I wanted to say, "This makes me feel powerful. This is what these things mean to me," without losing what Chuck D means when he says that most of his heroes don't appear on no stamps.
Holy shit I just read her. The arrogance is astounding.
Hey Allyson, have you seen this? [link]
Oh hells yeah. My Beasties. I saw a recent photo of Adam Yauch and he looks so frail. I'm heartbroken.
The arrogance is astounding.
You see why I'm saying you might make some missteps, but you won't be her? And, unlike her, you get that there are missteps, and that you might make them, and that's really the important distinction right there. Quantum motherfucking leap.
I understand what you say about getting something out of someone else's response to a struggle that you don't have to go through--that's definitely got the potential to go bad. But, seriously, if you stick to a) what it means to you and b) not trivialising what it means to the group in question, you've done a lot of the due diligence. Because I suspect you do get what Chuck D is on about.
We call them missteps, and among friends, we get that's what it is. We can have a conversation, like when i learned that "subhuman" is a word fraught with racist connotations, and be embarrassed and resolve to not use it because it's hurtful. And you can get that it was a misstep and not an asshole move, and know that I'm embarrassed and feel shame.
Putting it all down in a book without the back and forth, though, is such a different animal. There's no opportunity for someone to know that I made an error in a phrase and would feel ashamed for having done so if it was pointed out. There's no opportunity for me to say, "I didn't think of it like that, and I'm sorry I was just a jerkface, thanks for bringing it to my attention."
That's sort of what frightens me. Chuck's defiance is against an outside oppressor, and my oppressor is internal. It's self-doubt. The result is the same, in that there's an inspiration to overcome. He's talking about racism, clearly. But the things he's saying and the way he's saying it resonate no matter what kind of oppressor one is trying to beat down.
When I say that, I worry that I'm appropriating his point, because, you know, I am. But also, I can think two things at the same time. This is what Chuck means, and this is what Chuck means to me. I'm either too subtle or anvil about it. I can't find the medium place that lets me make the point in a way that I'm not worried that I've hurt someone.
It's like hearing someone say, "I'm not going to sit on the back of the bus!" when referring to missing a door-buster sale or getting a high number at the deli. Yes. That's just what Rosa Parks meant you to think, asshat.
Yes, but if your essay contains anything like what you just stated, Allyson, then I think anyone misconstruing your sincerity and intentions is going to be LOOKING to misconstrue it. And there ain't nothing you can do about that.
Anyway, fucking hair lady has no shame at all. She's doubling down.
Also: art is subjective. Music is art. So what Chuck D's intentions may or may not have been, when he sent it out into the world, the listeners are going to synthesize their experiences into/onto it.
And that's what art is all about, right? The author writes a book. The author's intention may be transparent, they may be oblique, but the way the myriad of readers interpret the book can be vastly different. (Otherwise, we would have no English departments, right?!)
