― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 3 July 2003 12:51 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 3 July 2003 12:52 (twenty years ago) link
Last year I got very excited by a track I found by Beenie Man called "That right" whiich seemed to say "When we say bun chi chi man, everybody say that's right ... but when we bun chi chi man that no right"
Which seems to be either criticising the whole chi-chi man bunning thing, or at least asking the audience to make a distinction between art and life. But I may be optimistically misunderstanding the lyrics. Can anyone (Dave Stelfox ... do you know this?) help me out here. Is this some reflection within the dancehall community, trying to placate foreign critics or just a misunderstanding of something truly horrendous.
― phil jones (interstar), Thursday, 3 July 2003 12:52 (twenty years ago) link
A couple of things: First, in regards to TOK's insisting that they are speaking of the Prime Minister in "Chi Chi Man"--This idea comes from the fact that their song was used as the campaign song for the opposition leader (Seaga--look him up on the interweb for kicks...he sold Jamaica's soul to the US in the 80s) in the last election. It was chosen because Prime Minister PJ Patterson got divorced and, in Seaga's mind, didn't remarry quickly enough--hence, im a chi-chi. The buses in Kinston are referred to as "Chi-chi buses" because public transport is one of Patterson's pet projects. Sooooo...yes, TOK ARE talking about the Prime Minister, but they are insinuating that he's gay and needs to be "bunned out."
Second:I started this thread last year--since then, I moved to Kingston and, after a few months, had to leave due to circumstances beyond my control. While I was there I worked at the University of the West Indies, went to a number of dances, met lots of folks in the recording industry, and spent quite a large portion of my time hanging out with some Bobo Ashanti dreads. Homosexuality is a topic that plain and simply IS NOT discussed in Jamaica--regardless of context. Violence and poverty (and I assure you, I have never in my life witnessed urban poverty like in Kingston) are larger issues for Jamaicans and even poverty gets short shrift due to the class divisions within Jamaican society.
So yes, Jamaica is an extremely (and violently) homophobic society, but it is a society in which the chi-chi man or batty boy has become the pariah--the personification of babylon. Babylon is also the source of oppression, so it makes as much sense (also biblically) to bun out fags as it does to bun out the capitalist psychos that have destroyed Jamaica. Of course, I think that this is faulty logic, but, like Stelfox, (and like what I wrote above) I recognize the cultural imperialism going on.
What was most interesting for me about the way in which these horrible tunes were regarded in Jamaica. Sure, there are some hits that sound good (e.g. "Living up" by Sanchez, the TOK above), but most of the violent homophobic stuff is in violent sounding music. Unfortunately, it seems that with the rise of Sean Paul, dancehall artists are taking to not really thinking about their lyrics in any way. It becomes easy to throw in a line like "Me nah wan no chi chi man, no" instead of really saying something. Thus, instead of homophobia being an unfortunate part of angry calls angainst oppressive forces, it is an unfortunate part of songs about hot gals.
When talking to dreads and bobos, I would ask about tunes like "Log On," or "Chi-chi Man." The response I got was not "It's bad when people say bad things about homosexuals," but that "it's bad when people want to resort to violence." My friend Manifes said "Why dem call pon people to 'step pon' people. Black man been stepped 'pon. I and I don't want to do same." Sounds like Stone Love will flip the fader over when a deejay makes a violent comment. Conscious sounds try not to play violent music--they want to uplift the people...So, and perhaps this might argue against the "capitalism makes people more tolerant" statement, the fact that there is money in vapidity encourages dancehall artists not to think about what they are saying. The money factor also explains why otherwise reasonable folks like Sizzla and Capleton (I know I condemned him in my first post, but I saw him live in Kingston at a tiny restaurant and he chatted all about the Iraq war and GWB...it was wicked) make nardcore dancehall tunes like "Pump up all poom poom" and "Empty the clip 'pon dem." Increasing the international market for ridiculous pop dancehall also increases the lack of thought (or respect for thought) in Jamaica. Many folks I spoke to bemoaned the lack of consciousness in music...since music is so much more of a part of Jamaican society than it is of North American or British society, positive music uplift de yout dem!
I hope this didn't come out poorly, I might have to write more later.
― cybele (cybele), Thursday, 3 July 2003 12:55 (twenty years ago) link
Postive track of the day: Sizzla "Simplicity"
― cybele (cybele), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:03 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:04 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:07 (twenty years ago) link
And boring,of course.
And what's so wrong with Morrissey?
Patois is vile slang. Lazy English. I refuse to even attempt an understanding.
― russ t, Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:08 (twenty years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:10 (twenty years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:12 (twenty years ago) link
― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:15 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:17 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:18 (twenty years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:19 (twenty years ago) link
like, since English, a deeply random admixture of several languages, has managed to hang on with both hands (largely for reasons of its proponents' tendency to bring tha luv to other countries and impose it by force),it somehow gains validity? Absurd! &c.
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:20 (twenty years ago) link
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:20 (twenty years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:20 (twenty years ago) link
― dave q, Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:23 (twenty years ago) link
As with all discussions on here, the original topic can get muddied and lost - I despise the dancehall genre anyway.... and patois - well.... whatever..... but my main bugbear is that people who have been opressed can become such violent, belligerent opressors. And try to justify this by religion. Could you get away with being racist these days by blaming your views on your religion? It just doesn't cut in this day and age. And neither should it - so how dare these people hide behind the mask of Rastafari.
Prejudice is prejudice.
― russ t, Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:24 (twenty years ago) link
Just not this one.Fuck off and comment to someone who cares.
― russ t, Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:25 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:26 (twenty years ago) link
it wasn't obnoxious or boring.
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:27 (twenty years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:27 (twenty years ago) link
Blount this is like a solid month of straight gold from you, somebody give that guy several boilermakers & send me the bill
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:30 (twenty years ago) link
But it does irk me when I hear 'street' English - sorry - I just hate it.... especially the hip hop slang speak - it sounds so imbecilic.
Blount - if that's your best feel good hit of the summer, dear, I really think you should get out from behind that PC more often, meet some real people who breathe, sweat, live and laugh - I'm sure you'll experience some better highs then. Thank you.
― russ t, Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:38 (twenty years ago) link
― dave q, Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:41 (twenty years ago) link
Look, stop feeding him and talk to me about Beenie Man.
― phil jones (interstar), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:50 (twenty years ago) link
There really has been some tremendous stuff on here, especially Cybele's and D Stelfox's recent contribs, but also that little comment way up at the top from Phil (with whom I often disagree): ".. you don't stop listening to the music you like. But you frame it"
That seems sensible and a good starting point for action (thinking action im particular) to me.
― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:50 (twenty years ago) link
That's why we'll never be mates, I think.
― russ t, Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:54 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:56 (twenty years ago) link
Answer my question, Russ! If you're so opposed to mongrel languages, then why are you writing & speaking in English, a language so deeply fucked that it has NO predictable rules of pluralization, verb formation, or pronoun usage? The "slangs" against which you rail are actaully more sensible than English from a linguistic standpoint!
praeterea censeo Carthaginem Romaniis delendam esse, etc
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:00 (twenty years ago) link
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:03 (twenty years ago) link
― sb, Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:04 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:05 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:06 (twenty years ago) link
― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:09 (twenty years ago) link
john is making a point in direct response to yours,in which he is using knowledge of linguistics to question your assumptions,so unless you can come up with a counter arguement,don't waste your time with another ten bollocks "all i'm saying is i don't have time for idiots who can't speak" post
― robin (robin), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:11 (twenty years ago) link
― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:11 (twenty years ago) link
― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:17 (twenty years ago) link
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:23 (twenty years ago) link
Stevem, the point is that all language has phatic components. Rap is a language heavy genre, so you'd expect a lot of it to be context setting rather than communicative. Are rap shout-outs more inane than "ooh"s and "aah"s of other pop music, or banal lyrics in rock?
― phil jones (interstar), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:28 (twenty years ago) link
To answer someone's q. from way up above: the aforementioned DJ had a "talking to," and in the year I remained at the station, he didn't play another "chi chi man"-type song.
I wonder if West Indian communities in the U.S. and Canada, like the one in Hartford to which our reggae shows were broadcasted, exhibit as virulent a homophobia as exists in Jamaica and Haiti.
(As a slight diversion, people reading this thread might want to read up on Haitian star Michel Martelly. His songs can contain anti-gay lyrics but he himself makes a habit of cross-dressing. In fact I think the first thing frees him to do the other. But it's an interesting comment on Haitian [and perhaps West Indian in general?] culture that a performer can successfully isolate a practice like cross-dressing from intimations of homosexuality.)
― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:31 (twenty years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:33 (twenty years ago) link
I just simply can't get my head round black homophobia - it's a bizarre concept to me. Homophobia in general.... but black homophobia?
Please direct me to a post where I've been racist, I'd be interested. If you can't, as I said, don't you dare imply or make untrrue suggestions on a public forum.
Thank you.
John - it's hardly for me, and certainly not for you, to justify the English language, its origins or its strengths and weaknesses - I'm speaking for MYSELF. What I believe and think, not from an irrelevant historical angle - are we all not on here to give our own personal versions/feelings regarding things? Do you honestly not think, as Stevem says (a poster I respect for being able to actually say what he genuinely thinks without fear of being accused of 'trolling' or 'racism' or general political incorrectness by the high and mighty moral highground who seem to inhabit this site), that the constant 'you know worrimean' and 'aiights' make the speaker sound dumb? Honestly? I'm being honest here - it makes my skin crawl. And when I listen to someone speaking like this, I switch off.
And Robin - who asked you? And more's the point - you are? I defend my stance as I wish. I write a post the length and way I care to - I for one skip long overblown theoretical posts as I find them horribly preachy and boring, I'm afraid and I don't have time to get through them. So back off. OK?
― russ t, Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:35 (twenty years ago) link
But we've had a pantomime / carnival tradition of cross dressing in European culture for at least 7 or 8 hundred years. May be much older.
― phil jones (interstar), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:36 (twenty years ago) link
russ if you're not trolling it speaks poorly of your intelligence.
― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:37 (twenty years ago) link
micky's gags about his cross-dressing and his overall style are mind-boggling. it totally confuses all notions of good taste and good music. everyone should check him out. i wish i could find jpegs of his album covers, they're the best (worst).
― amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:39 (twenty years ago) link
Russ, linguistics aren't terribly subjective. You can believe, if you want, that English isn't what is actually is. You are free to eat celery and claim that it's mutton. But it's still celery. It is, in fact, for me, and anybody else who knows the verifiable historical facts of the matter, to discuss the origins, strengths, weaknesses, and myriad wonders of the English language. "Speaking for MYSELF" is fine until you go asserting that there's something innately "pure" about "proper English." Then you're just wrong, and anybody who tells you so is justified in doing so. Unless you want to say something like "Look, I've always said two and two were five, and it's not for you to tell me they're four!"
Your "switching off" is a response which you should examine more closely than you do. That's really all I'm saying. Because your reasons for switching off don't stand up well to scrutiny.
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:44 (twenty years ago) link
no they are not, 9 times out of 10 its all tiresome, cliched drivel. and rarely is it as effective or useful as its phatic tendencies would suggest either.
― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:46 (twenty years ago) link
russ,it was in direct response to a point you were making!not only that,but it was concise and clearly written in the queens english
making a point and then refusing to listen to a response is incredibly ignorant,especially if you then continue arguing without even having the good grace to read the post someone else has gone to the trouble of typing for your benefit
― robin (robin), Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:46 (twenty years ago) link