Friday, December 29, 2006
Rethinking My Obituary of James Brown (and related thoughts about "black capitalism")
On December 25, while most people in the U.S. were busy observing a quasi-religious holiday (giving each other presents bought in celebration of a major religion known as Consumer Capitalism), I happened to be sitting by myself at a computer without any human distractions, only the company of a quiet and mellow cat. So it was a perfect time for me to do some blogging, and I thought I’d take the opportunity to blog about the death of the “Godfather of Soul,” James Brown. I thought it was a nice opportunity because people who were actually obligated to celebrate Christmas would not have the chance to post about James Brown in such a timely way. But ultimately, I scrapped that post (within a day) because it wasn’t very good. For one thing, I myself needed a little more refreshing and reminding about the details of Brown’s life story. And another reason why I wasn’t too satisfied with what I’d written is that I had made only one objection to making a sort of hero out of James Brown, and after I wrote this, I began to realize and remember a few other objections that I had.
As I wrote in my prior post, there is no disputing, at least as far as I’m concerned, that James Brown made some great music, that he especially did incredible things with beats and rhythms, and that he had a great voice and was a tremendous performer. There’s also no disputing that he extensively influenced much of the music that's been made since the 1960s and especially since the '70s, most especially music originating from the African American communities, but also going beyond that. He most obviously influenced funk music, which people say he “invented.” I would be reluctant to use the word “invent,” but I believe he was the man who gave this form of music its popular name and his performances and recordings overshadowed every other influence for a long time. He also was an obvious influence on hip-hop – extremely obvious, considering that there are probably hundreds of recorded hip-hop songs out there that actually sample him. And he made a big contribution, at least culturally, to the development of black power in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, most obviously with his slogan, “Say it loud, I’m black and I’m proud!”
But on the down side… As I mentioned in version number one of this obit, James Brown’s ultimate idea of black power turned out to be “black capitalism,” which also, somewhat perversely, eventually made him sort of a hero for some conservatives and Republicans. Unlike most Republicans or conservatives, he actually did want to destroy racism and he supported helping the poor through food stamps and other publicly funded means. But, more like many an annoying liberal, he believed that the main problem to overcome in the present economic system was the fact that, because of racism and other forms of prejudice, not everyone was given an equal opportunity to succeed. And this is a common idea that I find to be very flawed in at least a couple of big ways.
One is that even if, hypothetically, all identity-based biases such as racism could be knocked down, there would still be extreme inequality under capitalism, because a system inherently based on exploitation and competition (not to mention alienation and all those other wonderful things) will always result in the success of the few at the expense of the many, and most of the few who do succeed do so because of advantages connected directly to specific, elite kinds of knowledge and/or already existing wealth. Thus, identity-based biases and bigotry based on things like race or ethnicity do not by any means comprise all of the barriers to most people's success.
Besides – getting to the second flaw here – capitalist relations will always also guarantee that some people will try to keep others down through bigotry based on identity groups. Racism, sexism and other identity-based prejudices and forms of social oppression function as major tools used by the ruling class to keep themselves in power and keep that power from being shared. Not only do these forms of bigotry directly help the ruling class to keep certain groups down socially and economically; they also help to divide the working class, keeping the focus on antagonisms between racial or ethnic identity groups, thus preventing unity based on economic/class interest. I think there is room for debate regarding how much racism - or sexism, for that matter - might exist, as we know this kind of oppression, separate from the existence of capitalism, but I don’t think anybody who thinks about it can argue that there has ever been evidence of capitalism surviving and developing without the support of racism, sexism, etc.
The ruling class will always know instinctively that they cannot depend simply on the mythical “invisible hand” of the marketplace to maintain the status quo – that is, maintain their own power and wealth. So, the kind of thing that James Brown sort of talked about when he talked about “black capitalism” and giving people an equal opportunity to pursue the American Dream is, as far as I can tell, impossible.
Thus, when some news bulletins reminded me that there was a strong element of the black power movement that became very critical of James Brown for being counterrevolutionary, I could only think how right all those black power people were - even if the “movement” really consisted of so many different ideologies, some of which I couldn’t possibly agree with either.
Subsequent to the first James Brown obit that I put up, in which I did voice the above objection (though somewhat less extensively), I also began to be reminded that James Brown was at many times kind of a violent bully - not only was there that notorious incident in which he threatened people with a gun when he thought they'd been using his bathroom (mentioned in the prior version/post); he also was an admitted wife beater and was known to be a tyrant toward other members of his band.
It was very impressive that James Brown ascended so far from being in such a low place economically and socially (he came from some very real poverty) to become so wealthy and famous and, most importantly, such a major influence on so much good stuff – that is, so much good music and good culture. As I said before, if anyone had a moral right to talk about how people could come up from nothing to achieve the “American Dream,” James Brown did, because he'd made that kind of progress himself, unlike so many politicians who might promote the same idea but who actually started with lots of wealth and privilege right from birth. But I can’t help wondering whether a big part of James Brown’s success was due to the pure aggression and the unstoppable egotism that also influenced some of his worst behaviors. Of course he worked very hard and he had a lot of this quality that we call “talent” (whether that sort of thing is inborn or whether it is more a product of social influences , etc.), and he was also very socially concerned in some ways and generous, but maybe he had to have a lot of negative crap in his personality too in order to succeed in capitalism the way that he did.
James Brown’s legacy, and my attempts to write about it, also made me think a little more about eulogies and obituaries in general and how these sorts of things should be written... I think that if we appreciate someone for a particular thing that he did, a contribution that he made, we should probably be very specific about praising him for that particular thing. Too often, we end up trying to praise some cultural icon as an all-around hero when the individual whom we’re discussing actually had an awful lot of flaws. It is certainly possible to have a lot of admiration for something that somebody did in his lifetime without necessarily thinking or pretending that he was great in all ways. And this is a far more honest way to remember someone, too.
As I wrote in my prior post, there is no disputing, at least as far as I’m concerned, that James Brown made some great music, that he especially did incredible things with beats and rhythms, and that he had a great voice and was a tremendous performer. There’s also no disputing that he extensively influenced much of the music that's been made since the 1960s and especially since the '70s, most especially music originating from the African American communities, but also going beyond that. He most obviously influenced funk music, which people say he “invented.” I would be reluctant to use the word “invent,” but I believe he was the man who gave this form of music its popular name and his performances and recordings overshadowed every other influence for a long time. He also was an obvious influence on hip-hop – extremely obvious, considering that there are probably hundreds of recorded hip-hop songs out there that actually sample him. And he made a big contribution, at least culturally, to the development of black power in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, most obviously with his slogan, “Say it loud, I’m black and I’m proud!”
But on the down side… As I mentioned in version number one of this obit, James Brown’s ultimate idea of black power turned out to be “black capitalism,” which also, somewhat perversely, eventually made him sort of a hero for some conservatives and Republicans. Unlike most Republicans or conservatives, he actually did want to destroy racism and he supported helping the poor through food stamps and other publicly funded means. But, more like many an annoying liberal, he believed that the main problem to overcome in the present economic system was the fact that, because of racism and other forms of prejudice, not everyone was given an equal opportunity to succeed. And this is a common idea that I find to be very flawed in at least a couple of big ways.
One is that even if, hypothetically, all identity-based biases such as racism could be knocked down, there would still be extreme inequality under capitalism, because a system inherently based on exploitation and competition (not to mention alienation and all those other wonderful things) will always result in the success of the few at the expense of the many, and most of the few who do succeed do so because of advantages connected directly to specific, elite kinds of knowledge and/or already existing wealth. Thus, identity-based biases and bigotry based on things like race or ethnicity do not by any means comprise all of the barriers to most people's success.
Besides – getting to the second flaw here – capitalist relations will always also guarantee that some people will try to keep others down through bigotry based on identity groups. Racism, sexism and other identity-based prejudices and forms of social oppression function as major tools used by the ruling class to keep themselves in power and keep that power from being shared. Not only do these forms of bigotry directly help the ruling class to keep certain groups down socially and economically; they also help to divide the working class, keeping the focus on antagonisms between racial or ethnic identity groups, thus preventing unity based on economic/class interest. I think there is room for debate regarding how much racism - or sexism, for that matter - might exist, as we know this kind of oppression, separate from the existence of capitalism, but I don’t think anybody who thinks about it can argue that there has ever been evidence of capitalism surviving and developing without the support of racism, sexism, etc.
The ruling class will always know instinctively that they cannot depend simply on the mythical “invisible hand” of the marketplace to maintain the status quo – that is, maintain their own power and wealth. So, the kind of thing that James Brown sort of talked about when he talked about “black capitalism” and giving people an equal opportunity to pursue the American Dream is, as far as I can tell, impossible.
Thus, when some news bulletins reminded me that there was a strong element of the black power movement that became very critical of James Brown for being counterrevolutionary, I could only think how right all those black power people were - even if the “movement” really consisted of so many different ideologies, some of which I couldn’t possibly agree with either.
Subsequent to the first James Brown obit that I put up, in which I did voice the above objection (though somewhat less extensively), I also began to be reminded that James Brown was at many times kind of a violent bully - not only was there that notorious incident in which he threatened people with a gun when he thought they'd been using his bathroom (mentioned in the prior version/post); he also was an admitted wife beater and was known to be a tyrant toward other members of his band.
It was very impressive that James Brown ascended so far from being in such a low place economically and socially (he came from some very real poverty) to become so wealthy and famous and, most importantly, such a major influence on so much good stuff – that is, so much good music and good culture. As I said before, if anyone had a moral right to talk about how people could come up from nothing to achieve the “American Dream,” James Brown did, because he'd made that kind of progress himself, unlike so many politicians who might promote the same idea but who actually started with lots of wealth and privilege right from birth. But I can’t help wondering whether a big part of James Brown’s success was due to the pure aggression and the unstoppable egotism that also influenced some of his worst behaviors. Of course he worked very hard and he had a lot of this quality that we call “talent” (whether that sort of thing is inborn or whether it is more a product of social influences , etc.), and he was also very socially concerned in some ways and generous, but maybe he had to have a lot of negative crap in his personality too in order to succeed in capitalism the way that he did.
James Brown’s legacy, and my attempts to write about it, also made me think a little more about eulogies and obituaries in general and how these sorts of things should be written... I think that if we appreciate someone for a particular thing that he did, a contribution that he made, we should probably be very specific about praising him for that particular thing. Too often, we end up trying to praise some cultural icon as an all-around hero when the individual whom we’re discussing actually had an awful lot of flaws. It is certainly possible to have a lot of admiration for something that somebody did in his lifetime without necessarily thinking or pretending that he was great in all ways. And this is a far more honest way to remember someone, too.
