Vybz Kartel, Muta and Ragashanti mix-up and blender

Ian Boyne, Contributor

Vybz Kartel, 'the Teacher' pulled out a "crowd apparently larger than the university's annual graduation ceremony held at the same venue, based on the expanse of bodies that stretched from the lectern on to Ring Road" when he delivered a guest lecture at the University of the West Indies (UWI) last Thursday, courtesy of Professor Carolyn Cooper.

The Cake Soap King was there to wash away misconceptions that his skin bleaching was symptomatic of his self-hate and rinsed Afrocentricity. Kartel, one of our most articulate deejays, told his assembled students that "bleaching today is not the same as it was 25 years ago. I maintain that today we are a much prouder race than in the past".

If people can alter their natural look through weaves, hair straightening and cosmetic surgery, then what's wrong with bleaching, reasoned Kartel. Then Kartel, the reigning god of dancehall, in a pungent, if provocative twist bleached those memorable words of Emperor Haile Selassie made famous by Bob Marley: "Until the colour of a man's skin is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes!" So why should the colour of Kartel's skin be of so much more significance to take up so many column inches and air time?

When Kartel declared that "my skin alteration has nothing to do with self-hate", he was actually echoing some academic research. The academic Christopher Charles, in a paper titled, 'Complex Personhood and the Liberation of the Skin Bleachers in Jamaica', dismisses the popular view that skin bleaching represents self-hate and black negation. He quotes previous studies which "refute the self-hate thesis and suggest that we need to look to the way the skin bleachers, as complex persons, talk about the reasons that influence to them to affect their black physicality".

Out of touch

And Annie Paul, who is a sophisticated progressive, writes on her blog Active Voice after the Kartel lecture that "unfortunately, many of his (Kartel's) critics argue from a position that is uninformed by new thinking or ideas; many are stuck in their own identity crises and are slaves to an idée fixe that is no longer pertinent. We think nothing of purging the kink out of our hair or the Jamaican accent from our speech - both are socially accepted; but if black women are free to chemically terrorise their hair into limp straightness, why can't Vybz Kartel lighten his skin if he chooses to?"

And, as is her forte, Annie slams the contradictions of middle-class Jamaica: "And why are we mounting a hue and cry about skin bleaching downtown while deliberately averting our gaze from the many skin-lightening creams such as Ambi and Nadinola used in uptown homes? The selective moral outrage is telling - this seems to be yet another case of moralising the so-called lower classes".

But is it just that? Her fellow reflexive dancehall defender Professor Carolyn Cooper, broke ranks, finding Kartel's Look Pon Me lyrics "quite alarming":

Di gal dem love off mi brown cute face

Di gal dem love off mi bleach-out face

Carolyn opines that "the value judgement is bad enough. But it gets worse."

Gal a ask if mi a American citizen

An she tell mi dash weh di condom because

She tell mi she wah get a pretty son.

After noting Kartel's insult to women's intelligence - "any sensible woman would know that skin bleaching cannot alter a man's genetic structure" - Professor Cooper says, "And as for the assumption that the DJ must be an American! Another sad case of 'foreign mind' and 'local body'". At long last Professor Cooper sees something "sad" about something in the dancehall! Things must really be bad for Carolyn Cooper to be coming out publicly.

The fact is that the value-neutral, detached, non-judgemental perspective on dancehall has to be shelved for a more critical, reflective and thoroughgoing one.

REASONS FOR BLEACHING

Skin bleaching might not be a reflection of self-hate and low self-esteem. Even Mutabaruka has dismissed that view and has pointed out that no group of people seem to have greater self-esteem than 'ghettofabulous' women who, despite their proportion flaunt it with style and attitude!

It might not be self-hate or low self-esteem, but if you listen to why people bleach - and take their own testimonies - you will see that it has to do with improving their chances of getting a mate, being more respected and having 'ratings'.

Which is a sad reflection on us as a society. In this way, skin bleachers are really a mirror to a sick, dysfunctional, racially unjust society. Skin bleachers reflect our distorted psychopathology. Charles, in his paper, agrees that "skin bleachers' ways of speaking reveal (as reasons) ... the need to attract a partner; to look beautiful; to remove facial pimples; because they are too dark skin; bleaching is popular and their friends were engaged in the practice".

So while it is not self-hate - narrowly defined - it is not unrelated to Euro-American notions of beauty and status and, therefore, is not disconnected from a negative psychology.

How can we, especially as progressives, be nonchalant about a practice which accentuates the view that we are 'too dark', need 'to look beautiful' and need bleaching to 'attract a partner'? How can we be indifferent about a pop idol who glamorises bleaching, promotes cake soap in his lyrics and is busy telling his 'students' that "bleaching has never killed anyone" - a comment which drew Muta's ire on his Cutting Edge show on Wednesday night. Muta had a lot to teach the Teacher on Wednesday, but I am sure that Addi has better things to do than to listen to 

Cutting Edge.

A society which has rejected the Rastaman for the bleached-out skin nihilist who disavows any social responsibility cannot be a better society. Muta feels strongly that Kartel is endangering lives by spreading the view that bleaching is harmless, in the face of hard, scientific evidence otherwise. And the problem is, most of Addi's students have little interest in educating themselves - outside of what Addi has to teach them.

In a telling passage in Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Neil Postman says; "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.

"Orwell feared that truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared that the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. In (his book) 1984, Orwell added that people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. Orwell feared that what we hate would ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."

Pop culture represents the weapons of mass distraction. The ruling class uses it to control the masses, to deaden the pain of its exploitation and marginalisation. It's the people's circus. Dancehall, with its flight from consciousness and protest music into nihilism, materialism and trivia, is anaesthetics.

The Harvard-trained Chris Hedges puts it well in his book Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle: "This cult of distraction ... masks the real disintegration of culture. It conceals the meaninglessness and emptiness of our own lives. It seduces us in imitative consumption. It deflects the moral questions arising from mounting social injustice, growing inequalities, economic collapse and political corruption. Celebrities have fame free of responsibility".

So Kartel can proudly proclaim, "I am an entertainer, not a political or religious leader. If you, as a parent, want Vybz Kartel as a role model for your child, you've already lost as a parents." True and false. True, those parents cannot abandon their responsibility and must inoculate their children from the likes of Vybz Kartel. But false, in that the artiste necessarily bears the burden of some social responsibility.

Ragashanti LIVE

Which brings us to Ragashanti, whose programme was suddenly yanked from the airwaves last week, throwing his cult following into weeping and gnashing of teeth. The Broadcasting Commission has finally got him. Ragashanti and I have had many public battles, but we have deep personal admiration for each other. He has been very complimentary about me on air and has always pointed out to listeners that though he knocks my position on dancehall, "me and Ian Boyne a bredren".

And all my readers know that I regard Cliff Hughes as our finest newsman and a world-class journalist. I am proud to be part of a profession that has someone like him as practitioner. But it would be very difficult for even a fine mind like Cliff's to defend the Ragashanti show at that time of day. In a masterful public-relations move, the Broadcasting Commission released excerpts of 'Ragashanti Live' the same time it announced it was giving just 24 hours for the programme to be pulled. Those tempted to instinctively back freedom of expression would have been shocked by what was released. They had to concede that such outrageous and offensive content has no place in daytime radio, if at any time.

It seems, however, there are real questions for the Broadcasting Commission to answer about due process and whether Nationwide was given sufficient notice to put its house in order.

Now my view is that Nationwide was too blinded by commercial considerations to have responsibly assessed 'Ragashanti Live'. It should not have to wait for the BC fellows to pull the plug.

And Emily Crooks' wailing about whether the Broadcasting Commission has the authority to do what it did has absolutely no substance. Nationwide does not have a leg to stand on legally. But with regard to due process and fairness, the commission might have something to answer for.

Let us be clear that it is in the national interest for Nationwide News Network to survive. Nationwide's demise would be catastrophic to Jamaican journalism. A way must be found to protect both public morality and press freedom. Heavy-handedness and arrogance - on any side - do not serve the national interest.

source: http://mobile.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110320/focus/focus1.php