A musical pioneer who played a central role in defining a genre of music that now dominates the airwaves has been accused of child molestation by four men, who say the man abused them when they were boys in the 80s.
Where’s the media outrage?
The answer to that question tells us a lot about the racial divide in the US — and the racial divide in our mass media.
The allegations against Afrika Bambaataa, the hip hop DJ whose early tracks, particularly the Kraftwerk-swiping Planet Rock, helped to define and popularize both hiphop and electro in the early 80s, have been covered on black-oriented radio talk shows, in the hip hop media, and in black-oriented publications like Jet and The Root.
But the story has barely made a ripple in the mainstream — that is, white-dominated — media, with the notable exception of the New York Daily News, which has broken key elements of the story.
The details of the allegations are certainly troubling enough. Vulture — one of the handful of other outlets in the mainstream media to cover the story — sums up what we know so far:
Last month, Ronald Savage, a former New York State Democratic Committee member,accused Bambaataa of sexually abusing him in 1980, when Savage was 15 years old.
Since then, three more men have come forward with similar allegations: A man named Hassan Campbell told the New York Daily News that Bambaataa repeatedly sexually abused him when Campbell was 12 and 13, calling the DJ a “pervert” who “likes little boys.” Two other men whose identities were not fully disclosed also say Bambaataa abused them when they were minors — a former bodyguard also claims Bambaataa abused “hundreds” of young boys since the early 1970s. Bambaataa has denied all of the allegations.
[NOTE: The reference to the early 70s is puzzling. Elsewhere in the interview quoted in the NY Daily News, the apparent former bodyguard simply referred to “the 70s,” so I’m assuming he was misspeaking when referring to the early 70s. Bambaataa was born in 1957; he started his career as a DJ in 1977.]
The leaders of the Universal Zulu Nation, a sort of hip-hop advocacy group that Bambaataa founded in the 80s, first responded to the allegations by dismissing Savage, the first accuser to step forward, as “mentally challenged,” and denouncing the Daily News as a propaganda organ “compromised and controlled by U.S. government intelligence.”
But on Friday the group reversed itself, issuing a statement announcing that
ALL accused parties and those accused of covering up the current allegations of child molestation have been removed and have stepped down from their current positions.
If the allegations against Bambaataa are true — especially those coming from the man who says he was the hip hop producer’s former bodyguard — we’re talking about abuse on a Jimmy Savile scale. So why isn’t this story getting written about in the New York Times or talked about on CNN? Because the alleged victims were black boys? Because white people see Bambaataa more as a one hit wonder than a cultural icon?
Maybe Hannibal Buress needs to start talking about Bambaataa in his standup. That might get this story the attention it deserves.
Thanks David, the mention of Planet Rock has given me the most uncomfortable case of earworm ever 🙁
I think part of it has to do with the fact that these artists are still alive and so royalties for their work are still going to them. A case in point is Gary Glitter’s “Rock and Roll Part 2”; he’s still getting royalties from that!
After Michael Jackson died, everyone seemed to forget about the accusations against him, and he became a much more sympathetic figure in the public and media eye (partly because of the circumstances surrounding his death, but also just how rough his life was overall). In some ways, he almost ended up being redeemed as a result, although of course he wasn’t around to enjoy it.
It’s too early whether this will also happen to other “tainted” artists like Polanski, Spector, Glitter, et al., but it’s possible. When the royalties are going to their estate rather than to them, it’ll be a different situation.
(This is also why Wagner is remembered more fondly; his work is in the public domain).
As far as Bambaataa is concerned, I think boycotting him might be a tad premature given that in America, we do have a little thing called “innocent until proven guilty” and it’s part of our culture. We don’t have the Napoleonic code.
@Hu’s On First
I’ll just remind you that WHTM is not a courtroom and this is not a trial. People boycotting Bambaataa and believing his alleged victims has nothing at all to do with the legal system. “Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply here.
Support to the survivors of this man’s abuse, and all csa survivors.
@Hu’s On First, there is a high standard of proof in criminal cases because of the severity of the punishments which may be given to those found guilty. The government of your nation, and mine, can’t take away people’s freedom without being absolutely positive that they have committed a crime.
In contrast, there is no standard of proof that individual people have to meet before they’re permitted to make decisions about where they spend their own money. “Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply to the opinions held by individuals, and it doesn’t apply to the choices they make as a result of those opinions.
@Policy of Madness and a few others.
I can totally understand boycotting an artist because of their actions, or finding their work an uncomfortable reminder of those actions. But I don’t think people should feel guilty for having had a positive emotional response to that art. I know lots of good kind creative people who aren’t creating seminal or trailblazing work, and their moral character won’t get them there. And more to the point I probably know of people who are kind, intelligent and insightful and do things I appreciate – but who do horrible things I don’t know about. And once we admit it’s possible that the moral stain doesn’t leak out and taint everything a person does, that it’s possible to be abusive without being obviously monstrous, it’s easier to believe victims when they accuse someone we genuinely admire. Or feel we have to defend the artists actions, because having had an aesthetic response to it means we must have faulty moral judgement. I don’t like Wagner’s music because I don’t like Wagner’s music, not because I’m a better person.
@WickedWitchOfWhatever:
Yeah, I understand why people would want to denounce and no longer support somebody once it comes out that they were/are awful, but for me it doesn’t usually inhibit my enjoyment of whatever they’ve done in the past. I won’t try to defend or excuse them, of course, I just, you know, still like their stuff. If I spent money on something and liked it enough to have it be viewed/played/listened to regularly over the years, I’m not going to stop because someone involved in its creation is a terrible person. While certain people might have more importance than others in a work, a lot more people than just the director or singer or main actor are involved in creating things like films, TV shows, music, or video games.
On the subject of celebrity’s who have gotten away with sexual assault, here in Canada it has just been announced that Jian Ghomeshi will not be facing a 2nd trial for his sexual assaults.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-sex-assault-june-peace-bond-1.3574564
Basically he’s getting away with everything with the only consequences for his vile actions being the backlash against him and losing his job. It’s at times like these that I’m reminded that while Canada likes to play at being a egalitarian nation it still has a long way to go before it can justify that image.
TLDR FUCK CANADA.
I don’t think there’s a nation out there (or society) that actually lives up to what it says. It’s a human problem. That’s the problem with stating your beliefs. If you have to state them, it’s probably because you don’t actually follow them.
I think we’re going to see things getting better up here though. The past two years have seen people becoming a lot more vocal about progressive improvement, especially in what we expect of our political leaders. Good signs. But you’re right, we’re nowhere near done yet.
@WickedWitchOfWhatever
I wouldn’t call it a boycott. Boycotts are intended to change behavior, and it’s presumed that the boycott will be lifted as soon as the behavior changes. There’s nothing Roman Polanski can do to change what he did.
Again, what makes this line of argument questionable to me is that we never try to separate, say, Steven Spielberg from his art. We don’t try to separate Prince from his art. It’s just not an effort that is made outside of, say, film school, when the artist is a fantastic person. Why do we apply this asymmetrically?
What’s the motive for making the attempt? Is there a motive beyond, “I like this and want to continue enjoying it”? I can’t think of one. Is that a good enough motive to keep funneling acclaim toward an admitted and convicted child rapist like Roman Polanski?
For me it isn’t. There is no such thing as perfect art, and a lot of art has problematic aspects. Hence the line: it’s okay to enjoy problematic art, as long as one acknowledges that the art is problematic and how. I personally think that this argument is frequently taken too far, and there definitely comes a point where the art is so problematic that it is impossible for you to enjoy it and still be a person with whom I am comfortable being friends. “I acknowledge this art is problematic” is not a magic incantation that erases the negative cultural impact the art produces.
Similarly, there is no such thing as the perfect artist, but there does come a point where the artist is too problematic for me to continue to say “this person has a characteristic that I can freely praise.” Child rapists have crossed that line for me. There is a cultural impact to praising Roman Polanski’s art, and you can see it clearly and plainly in the defenses that people have offered for him. If nobody thought his movies were worth the celluloid upon which they were printed, do you think Whoopi Goldberg would be claiming his rape of a drugged tweener who was crying and trying to push him away wasn’t “rape-rape”? Do you think you’d hear people making the argument that he’s suffered enough and justice has run its course, even though he skipped the country explicitly to escape justice? Is this something you think would occur if people didn’t praise his art?
“Great art created by child rapists” and “mediocre art created by great people” is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of great art created by great people, far more than I could ever consume in my entire life. It’s not a boycott; it’s me having no time for people like Roman Polanski or anything he’s made. There’s more great art by great people in the world than I have life ahead of me so there’s no need for me to offer any form of support for him.
I’ve seen you write this before, but I don’t know what you mean by this. I don’t ever like a movie just because I happen to like the director. It’s likely that I don’t even know the name of the director, or anything about their character at all. I never like a song just because I like the person who wrote it. I only like the song because the song is good. I genuinely have no idea what you’re saying. Do people actually think like this? The artist seems like a nice person, therefore their music is good?
For me, it’s hard to find something that isn’t somehow problematic to enjoy. For example, I enjoy Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness even though Billy Corgan is a transphobic prick. While that’s not on the same level as someone being a rapist, it’s the same idea. I think that yes, bad people can create good art, and yes, the good art they make leads to people defending them whenever they do something bad. But, the act of enjoying works by the morally bankrupt doesn’t morally bankrupt the audience.
I think it’s really all a question of individual brain wiring. Some people create stronger associations between a thing and its creator than others, based on how they interact with the world. People with that stronger association may not be able to enjoy the art because of it, even if they enjoyed it before. Others don’t have that issue.
@FrickleFrackle
My biggest problem of this sort right now is Vybz Kartel who, apart from the standard homophobia and casual sexism, was sentenced to life in prison in 2014, for murder. I realize I have no particular reason to believe he is innocent, and I have no special emotional connection to the artist. However, he’s undeniably the most consistent and prolific dancehall artist even now in 2016, releasing major hits from prison pretty much every week. I’m not completely unaffected by his crimes, but it hasn’t changed how I feel about his music. I can hope that it would, but it just hasn’t. I didn’t assume he was a great person before, and I don’t think he’s a great person now.
@WeirwoodTreeHugger
Not a single woman in sight to blame for it, but a black man instead. And it’s pretty clear by now that MRAs and plain ol’ neo-nazis can be thrown into the same bag of dicks, what with the baffling overlap (crank magnetism anyone ?) and the fact that they seem to get along SO WELL together. Additionally, MRAthink says “he raped boys, that’s gay, therefore effeminate, therefore WOMENDIDIT” – so really it’s only a matter of time before the usual suspects start showing up. Granted, black victims, so they don’t actually care in the first place, but they’ll take anything they think allows them to put the blame on pretty much anyone who isn’t a straight white male.
Aside from that, I can’t help but feel empathy towards everyone here who’s a now-former fan. Might sound weird but you do feel kinda “betrayed” when an otherwise great artist turns out to be exactly the horrible kind of person you keep advocating against. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people who like someone’s art to put a certain kind of trust and faith into that someone, and to actually consider it as part of the deal. I’m not saying it’s impossible to separate the art from the artist, or even the artist from the perpetrator, but it’s absolutely not something that anyone should be expected to do.
Now I got some feminist hip-hop for anyone wanting “musical bleach” to wash that out, but sadly it’s all in French 😐
I think it’s completely unreasonable. I mean, I suppose it’s reasonable to expect some level of human decency from any random person, but to assume that great artist = great person. NO. It just isn’t true. That’s why PoM’s argument makes me very uncomfortable.
@Scildfreja
Obviously, I don’t demand that everyone should be able to separate art from artist. If you can’t, or won’t, then I totally respect and support that too.
I’ll add that I agree with PoM that there’s a certain line below which what I know about the artist can influence me as to whether I choose to enjoy their art in the future. I don’t knowingly listen to music made by rapists, for example. I don’t listen to Tupac for this reason. For me, it doesn’t affect the quality of his music – it’s just an active decision not to support him or give him any attention.
I’m not saying great artist = great person, I’m saying there’s some accountability to be had when you have a huge audience. There really aren’t any excuses in the first place for a lack of that “level of human decency”, artist or no artist, but a public figure should especially be held accountable for that stuff.
@Sinkable John
But I never said there’s any excuse, and I don’t appreciate that implication. I said it’s ridiculous to put trust and faith in a person just because they made a good movie or a good album. This is not how the world works, and it’s unhelpful to pretend otherwise.
(I don’t mean for this to come off as quite so long and ‘splainey, just trying to help break this conflict down a little. It’s often good to reduce things when there’s a perspective problem. Mea culpa!)
(Edit: I figured we were on the same page, @IP! I agree and feel the same – people can do what they want about the art of worrisome artists, though I do think a public statement of not-giving-my-money-to-them is a good thing to do, often)
You’re right that it’s not true; great artist doesn’t equal great person. Unfortunately, that’s not how we really evaluate things. The fan has positive feelings towards the work of the artist; hearing the music activates positive associations and generates positive emotions.
The fact that the artistic-work-appreciation map is connected to the map holding knowledge about the artist as a person means that thoughts about the artist will also have a positive association. The artist-as-a-person map activates, which activates the artistic-appreciation map, which generates positive emotions. The strength of this relationship is individual, based on how strong that connection is between the two maps.
So, our brains naturally have positive reactions to make people who things we like, to varying degrees depending on the separation of the two maps and the strength of the individual neurons doing the connecting (based on how often they’re activated, for what duration of time, diet, fatigue, health, etc).
If the artist-as-a-person map also has strong negative associations on its own (e.g. learning something terrible about the artist), interesting stuff happens. The two maps still positively reinforce one another, but the emotional outcomes conflict, generating unease, with alternating positive and negative emotions based on whichever map output is stronger at the time.
We can’t really help how we feel about things; it’s not a question of whether our feelings are reasonable or not – they just are. Some who have a strong link between the two concepts (the art and the artist) may feel obligated to cut ties with the art and avoid activating it, because activating it by-necessity activates thoughts about the artist. Alternatively, someone with a weaker connection between the two may be able to suppress the artist-map while still happily exposing themselves to things that activate the art-map.
So, it’s not really a question of “it’s not reasonable to think great-artist = great-person, so I’m going to keep enjoying the art while denouncing the person.” It’s much more a question of whether exposing oneself to the art creates meaningful thoughts about the artist, and whether the negative feelings created by that exposure are strong enough to overpower the positive feelings one once felt.
It can be even further dependent on the nature of the art or relation to the artist. For instance, I was a long time fan of Dallas Green – first through Alexisonfire and then through his solo project, City and Colour. For various reasons, I found him easy to relate/identify with, and his solo work is very clearly meant to be closely associated with him personally, so I formed a pretty specific sort of emotional connection to that music.
Long story short, I found out that in person he’s A) kind of a dick and B) cheats on his wife. Those revelations weren’t (in my eyes) worthy of consciously avoiding his work, but it did basically “disrupt” the emotional connection I had made to his solo stuff, which I now have a hard time enjoying and largely ignore, while I have no problem enjoying his other (now sadly defunct) band as much as I ever did.
@Scildfreja
That’s fine by me. I’m not trying to argue that anyone should continue to enjoy the art of an artist who they despise. I’m also not saying that it’s wrong to simply choose not to support the artist because they’re a terrible person.
I’m saying I don’t understand why people can’t intellectually deduce that making great art won’t make you a decent person. I read through your explanation, and I acknowledge the reality that the name “Notorious B.I.G.” fills me with happy emotions. But if I think about it for 2 seconds, I realize I don’t know a damn thing about him other than his music. It’s not too much to ask that people question their own impulses.
@dlouwe
I’ll agree with that.
That was in no way an implication and I’m sorry that I came off sounding like that. Not to look for excuses but English isn’t my first language and I have to weasel my way around certain “difficult” sentences (actually, most of my sentences) in a way that sometimes makes them sound waaaaay off. I meant, of course we expect some level of decency from just about anyone, but in my opinion this should be ESPECIALLY stressed out if said person is, well, not just anyone.
@Sinkable John
Okay, fair enough.
I might as well say that I’m gonna go geek out on Eurovision right now, so I won’t see any more replies tonight. Probably not gonna contribute any more to this thread anyway.