“My presence is charity …”
That sound bite from hip-hop superstar Jay-Z has resonated and reverberated throughout the blogosphere for days. In an interview for Life+Times, Jay was responding to criticisms from entertainer-activist Harry Belafonte; who blasted the rapper and his equally famous wife, Beyonce, for their lack of activism. The backlash against Jay’s arrogant comment was swift and severe — with many seeming to relish the opportunity to roast the famously cocky emcee over a spit for such blatant and disrespectful hubris.
The aftermath of conjecture and finger wagging has revealed what many already knew: Many people really don’t like Jay-Z. But the initial criticism from Belafonte raises another question: Why do we believe our celebrities are obligated to become activists?
An activist is defined as one who is an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause — especially a political or social cause. The most celebrated and effective activists of the 20th century were especially devoted to their activism; it was their life’s work. Mr. Belafonte represents the rare celebrity whose life is as much about activism as it is entertaining — perhaps even more so.
However, his approach is a rare one.
Real activism requires time and effort and dedication. It isn’t a side gig or a hobby; which is why most successful businesspeople, athletes and entertainers aren’t activists. They dedicated their lives to their business or their sport or their acting or musical career. That’s their job. And if you’re one of the handfuls of people that can lay claim to being the “biggest” in your respective field — it’s safe to say that job takes a lot of your time and even more of your effort.
Most typical working people won’t even call out of a 30-hr a week job to attend a voter registration rally in their own town.
But many celebrities can still donate money and their name to various efforts. But those that do seem to still get blasted by critics for not doing “enough.” No matter how many different foundations or how many causes they contribute to. But money is the most necessary element of any movement (except for manpower.) Why do we dismiss financial contributions so easily?
There seems to be a pervasive belief that Jay-Z is just a rich rapper who couldn’t care less. But he’s helped contribute to solving Africa’s water crisis and launched a trust fund for the children of Sean Bell, who was murdered by the NYPD in 2006. He donated $1 million to Hurricane Katrina relief and appeared at a rally for Trayvon Martin in New York City two weeks ago. But none of that matters because he’s not leading rallies?
This idea that celebrity automatically qualifies you for activism has been around for generations. But it has intensified in the social media age. With virtually every aspect of stars’ lives being consumed by the general public, criticism against artists who aren’t perceived as being “active” enough is louder than ever.
But is it justified?
Being wealthy and famous doesn’t automatically qualify you to become a social activist or crusader any more than it qualifies you to be a neurosurgeon. If one takes causes seriously, it has to be acknowledged that not everyone is a born leader in that regard. What marches did Prince lead in the 1980s? What socio-political movements were kick-started by Whitney Houston? It seems like these A-listers of the past gave to charities and launched foundations in their name to aid causes — which is similar to what many superstar artists do today. For every one Harry Belafonte or Paul Robeson; there have always been ten or twenty Stepin Fetchits or Bill Cosbys. Both Fetchit (birth name Lincoln Perry) and Cosby were known for giving money to help various causes. But we are so enamored with the idea of the rabble-rouser that, as a generation, we dismiss the check-writer completely.
Jay Z nor anyone else is above criticism. What he said should be criticized. But there’s a difference between criticism and vilification. But it’s regrettable that a necessary dialogue devolved into a war of words between two strong-willed men.
Many people believe that hip-hop is a cancer — and that belief colors the way that they view rappers and their “lack” of activism. If you’re already prejudiced against a group, you’re going to think the worst of that group. But maybe you should step outside of your biases and find out exactly what is real and what isn’t. Because black people believing the worst about black people never seems to push anyone forward. And we don’t need any more help being held back.
Sources: RollingOut @StereoWilliams
