So this video has been circulating on the blogosphere and its overall message is very positive. Please take the time to watch the video before continuing to read the rest of this post.
I love most of this video (clearly not the dig at Tara Reid). "No Homo" is an awful statement originating in a specific genre of music but that has spread way beyond the world of hip-hop. This post isn't at all trying to justify the use of this deplorable phrase.
That being said...go back to the beginning of the video and re-watch it. Notice anything peculiar? Why does he deem it appropriate to change his "style" of speech and dress? I posed this question to my coworkers, and they guessed it was to make a dig at hip-hop culture. Well I agree with them...but isn't the rest of the video a big enough dig? When he changes his language and dress, he is taking a MUCH deeper dig at the entire culture. Using "No Homo" is ridiculous...but he also used the same implications for the way people talk/dress who are apart of hip-hop culture.
It brings me to the point of language. How often do we hear jokes about "blackccents" or "white people talk," and having to change the way you speak based on the ethnicity of the people around you. We saw it in "Flavor of Love" with Buckwild...or in "Crash" where Tony Danza's character asks a black actor to stop "sounding white" because it would come off as "untrue" to his character. Using terms like "hommies" or wearing popped collars with baggie pants isn't ridiculous, it's part of a culture. "No Homo" is offensive across lines of diversity, and therefore shouldn't be apart of any culture. I can't make the same argument for "hommies." People who use slang and ebonics (side note ebony-phonics as in 'black' words) have been demoralized and written off as unintelligent. They are NOT unintelligent, they have just been raised in a community that uses this style of speech. We should be thinking of it as a dialect rather than as a measure of intelligence. One of my coworkers said "well words like hommies or beasting are ridiculous." Well, it's the way A LOT of people talk in this country.
This video really goes to show why there are so many divides in the LGBT community, all activists communities for that matter. He immediately defended the queer community by putting down a community composed of mostly people of color. Imagine the queer person of color who listens to hip-hop and uses slang and then watches that video. I always get really angry when LGBT people divide based on color...but I'm slowly starting to realize why they feel left out...
We still don't get it...uhhhhh
Cross-posted at nyaf.blogspot.com
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: No Homo...a deeper look.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16627
I think there is some validity in the opinion that speaking in non-standard English is a sign of, at the least, poor education. While I recognize that just because something is taught in school that doesn't mean it's automatically the best thing ever, there is something to be said for the standardization of language and speech - more succinct communication, for one. The argument that people who speak "ebonics" or incorrectly use grammar are unintelligent stems from the connection between standard English language/grammar and education.
I also make a distinction between "dialect" and "accent". There is definite classism when people mock the Southern twang or the Midwest "doncha know".
Personally, I love slang words and the creation and evolution of new language. But as someone who studies languages in general, I can tell you very well how annoying it is to find out that even after years of study, you won't be able to understand most of the people who speak a certain language just because of dialects where people don't pronounce certain letters the same way.
First of all, the term "No Homo" is old news in the hip hop world - it was introduced by rapper Juelz Santana way back in 2003.
Second, I've noticed that it's easy for White LGBT activists to attack African Americans for homophobia, while having little to nothing to say about White homophobia - case in point, blaming Black Californians [only 7% of the state population] for Proposition 8 when the White dominated Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) pumped $ 25 million dollars worth of church funds into the election.
But, instead of blaming White Mormons, the White LGBT activists blamed Black people!
I totally see your point and I agree with you.
But perhaps he should have imitated the systematically unequal educational system rather than the language and the people that resulted from it.
I see your point, as well. I associate that kind of behavior with quasi-racist upper middle class white kids, and unfortunately there are a lot of people in the queer community who fit this description.
While we're taking a dig at "That's Gay" (which I personally find hilarious, particularly the one about coming out on TV Shows), what is with the man in a dress with a five-o'clock shadow in the opening sequence? How is that any better than the Mac ad below?
http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2009/09/tell-apple-computers-to-pull.html
I recognize they probably thought it was a funny joke. But, particularly since having had a long-term relationship with a transwoman who struggled a lot with her self-image, these kinds of jokes really make me much more sad than amused.
this probably irrelevant, but I figured the five o'clock shadowed man in a dress was just a dig at the usual stereotypes of gay men (all cross-dressers, effeminate, etc)?