It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

STAR SPANGLED BANNER= the first Gangsta "Rap" song

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7


These people cant understand his point because they dont even know what the damn song is even about!

Its a poem celebrating violence and war, in using aggression to defend your turf.


 


Well actually it was the English that were bombing so it's in celebration of defence, not aggression. You could dig much deeper into the issue and there actually is a valid point to be made in all this but simply saying "the star spangled banner is a rap song" is dumbing it down beyond comprehension...




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
lol Im sorry but this was hilairous and when i read the NWA reference i was laughing so hard



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Like I said before, you aren't thinking about this as a concept, you're thinking about this with details. The OP had more than just to do with the star spangled banner, it went onto compare modern USA actions to modern day street gangs.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
simply saying "the star spangled banner is a rap song" is dumbing it down beyond comprehension...


That's the HEADLINE and not the point made in the video AT ALL.

The CONTEXT was people blaming rap music for violence, and this rapper is pointing out that violent imagery is nothing new in America, and made the example of the Star spangled banner because ti goes back so far.

Context. Read past the headline.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by stanguilles7


But that was in now way his main point.

Did you really go that far to try and misinterpret it?


 


I already covered the other aspect in other posts. It was based on the war of 1812 and the British invading a country because they sought to be independent. I don't remember any gangs that were trying to form a nation in the recent history of the US.


And AGAIN he's not comparing America to a gang, although one could certainly make the argument.

The CONTEXT (something you seem determined to miss) is pointing out that violent imagery in music is nothing new, and did not originate with Rap, and can be found in something as early as the Star Spangled Banner.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by boncho
 


Like I said before, you aren't thinking about this as a concept, you're thinking about this with details. The OP had more than just to do with the star spangled banner, it went onto compare modern USA actions to modern day street gangs.


Wow, I must be confused when I read:




You are now about to witness the strength of street knowledge

The Star Spangled Banner was the FIRST gangsta "rap" song

The lyrics are filled with nothing but violence and pride that we can kill our enemies. How our colors, "flag" are better. How we can successfully blow up and kill anyone.


As I pointed out though, the battle they are speaking about and the lyrics specifically are about a bombing raid by the English and the Americans surviving it.

There are plenty of rap songs that glorify wanton violence, and then there are some that highlight cases of abuse or the plight of the righteous. So.... huh? Why do you get to throw rap into just one little linear category?



The video from the OP in particular is talking about injustices to Women, Indians and Black people claiming that the star spangled banner justifies these things. But at the time the song is describing the British raid on Baltimore, the threat was from the British who also had slaves.

Oh, what about black people and slavery? At the time there were a number of countries that were getting out of the international slave trade:


In the 1700s most slaves had been transported from Africa across the Atlantic on British-owned ships. In Britain a moral crusade against the slave trade was aided by greater literacy and printing, and Britain's parliament passed a law in 1807 against international slave trading.

Denmark also made trading in slaves illegal, and in 1808 the United States joined in, forbidding its citizens to partake in the international slave trade. Sweden followed suit. The Dutch, whose sea captains had also engaged in transporting slaves from Africa, did the same.
Source

Ah, but what about African leaders, what were they doing about the injustices of the peoples in their land?


In search of slaves for his army to offset losses of men in Arabia, and in search of gold, Muhammad Ali in 1820 sent his army, led by his son, Ismail, southward into the Sudan.


Source

Ah so... hmm... The star spangled banner is speaking about a raid in Baltimore against an invading country and how a nation partly earned it's independence through the defence of an attack, but somehow it justifies slavery, inequality in women and the war with Indians?

The Indians is a good point at least, but don't forget the British were arming and supplying them the same as tactics used today to arm and aid militias in enemy countries so their governments can be overthrown. About the only good point made, but not relevant in the context presented.


The American flag is nothing but a red white and blue doo rag! All of you overly patriotic people that are brainwashed into Americanism, are prideful to be part of a violent organized criminal gang called the USA.


Maybe that argument can be made for the current state of affairs in the US, but I don't see what it has to do with the star spangled banner. Or the era in which it was created.



Now I don't hate the USA, I like it, it is my homeland. I just can't stand blindly patriotic people that can't admit that this country has been hijacked and is terribly corrupt.


Does not relate to everything else in your OP.


reply to post by stanguilles7


The CONTEXT (something you seem determined to miss) is pointing out that violent imagery in music is nothing new, and did not originate with Rap, and can be found in something as early as the Star Spangled Banner.

 


Sorry. No.

Defending a Fort against a raid by bomber ships is far different than "cappin' a manz cuz he be snitchin'."


Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by boncho
simply saying "the star spangled banner is a rap song" is dumbing it down beyond comprehension...


That's the HEADLINE and not the point made in the video AT ALL.

The CONTEXT was people blaming rap music for violence, and this rapper is pointing out that violent imagery is nothing new in America, and made the example of the Star spangled banner because ti goes back so far.

Context. Read past the headline.


See my previous reply.

Defending a Fort against a raid by bomber ships is far different than "capping a manz cuz he be snitchin'."
edit on 20-4-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7


All he did was point out that glorifying violent imagery is nothing new in America, and did not start with rap.

 


Question. A song about someone coming into your house, trying to rob you and your family and you killing him to stop the act and preserve your livelihood....

Is that the same as rolling up on someone and shooting them because they dissed you?



There are many acts of violence, some will be justified and some won't be. Just because one is glorified should all of them be glorified?

I guess the world should wait on the hit record of righteous Ted Bundy and Charles Manson....




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I get that you dont like rap, and so bristle at the comparison the headline implies, but it appears to be preventing you from grasping the point the speaker in the video is making about the historical context of violent imagery in popular music, and how easily people gloss over things like 'bombs bursting in the air''.

Have a good night!



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

edit on 20-4-2012 by RedGoneWILD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I KNOW the historical context in which the star spangled banner was written as it was cited in my OP. The song is violent in nature regardless if were were defending ourselves or not. It takes pride in killing British people, I mean what don't you get? Victors write the history. I'm personally glad that the USA won against the brits but having a war time survival song as an anthem isn't very positive. The song is about surviving British attacks by killing them, really not very glorious when you take the patriotic value off of it.

Our anthem should be about the constitution and the positive things the USA has, not look we showed them brits! I'll kill all them`!~!@~ yeah!~@

"Gangsta rap" and rap are two different genres, not all rap is "gangsta", so no one is putting it in a linear category.

Ahhh here we go bring up black people and slaves again. As my OP had nothing to do about slaves other than :1 second of the video, I don't feel the need to partake in race baiting. I don't agree with KRS that the banner justified it, but I get what he was trying to say. It was a talk show where people give you on the spot questions and you give on the spot answers.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


If someone broke into my house and I shot them dead, I wouldn't feel glorified over it. I wouldn't feel proud and I sure as hell wouldn't make a song out of it in a positive light.

Wars aren't glorious

Violence isn't glorious.. though sometimes necessary, it really isn't anything to feel proud about




edit on 20-4-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by boncho
 


I get that you dont like rap, and so bristle at the comparison the headline implies, but it appears to be preventing you from grasping the point the speaker in the video is making about the historical context of violent imagery in popular music, and how easily people gloss over things like 'bombs bursting in the air''.

Have a good night!



I don't know where you deduced that I don't like rap. If you take a look at what rappers say early in their career and what they say later though, you will find a change of heart. Especially if they ever make it to the point of earning millions of their work.

I am a fan of rap/hip hop and r&b, but I think context is needed for all of it. There are some good rappers out there and there are some that are just trying to cash in on a fad. Just like every other genre of music.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke


Ahhh here we go bring up black people and slaves again. As my OP had nothing to do about slaves other than :1 second of the video, I don't feel the need to partake in race baiting. I don't agree with KRS that the banner justified it, but I get what he was trying to say. It was a talk show where people give you on the spot questions and you give on the spot answers.

 


So in other words the OP video doesn't mean anything because the speaker was put on the spot? Give me a break. The speaker said that the times reflected an era where the national anthem justified slavery, the treatment of women and the injustices to Indians.

Well oops.

You would be hard pressed to find a national anthem that hasn't been created in the last 50 years. So is it just the US anthem, or do all of them reflect the periods they were created. And how does that even relate what they stand for?

As in this case, the national anthem stood for people defending their country.

As I mentioned earlier, not all violence is the same. A group of fellows raping and pillaging is a much different story than the people who were defending against the marauders is it not?

And there was no race baiting. It is well known that black slave traders sold their own people in Africa, people from different sects or different tribes... I think it is race baiting if you act like it was only people of different race involved in the slave trade. Take it for what it's worth. There was an injustice to a racial group, but that injustice saw hands soaked in blood from all sides, therefore it was not about race, as it was about social standing.

The same thing goes on today with poor vs. rich, affluent vs. uneducated.

It's not a racial issue. But you were told it was to maintain the divide that the elite use as a force to wield power. I never understood how people could be so happy to get played against one another.

I



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by boncho
 


If someone broke into my house and I shot them dead, I wouldn't feel glorified over it. I wouldn't feel proud and I sure as hell wouldn't make a song out of it in a positive light.

Wars aren't glorious

Violence isn't glorious.. though sometimes necessary, it really isn't anything to feel proud about




edit on 20-4-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


I have to agree with this point here. This really lends a lot of weight to the original argument and I concede that you have a valid logic here.

The problem that we have is that the history of the US involves all this bloodshed because the settlers were fighting their oppressors. They stood up to the current rule and deemed themselves independent.

So it is quite difficult to exclude these things when telling the story. The highlight of independence in this case was the struggle to fight off the ones who believed the American states should be part of a larger British Empire. The real question is whether or not it was justified. And then we are left with the point you make....

Should the national anthem reflect the violent struggle or should it reflect the good that came after it?



Now, does gangsta rap reflect a just cause?

I will say some of it does for sure. But, at the same time, some of it is senseless.

By your own admission you say that you wouldn't make songs about a just violent experience that you had. So why would you condone violence in gangsta rap? Kind of makes your argument moot does it not?



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke


"Gangsta rap" and rap are two different genres, not all rap is "gangsta", so no one is putting it in a linear category

 


I also have to disagree with you here. Some rap talks about killing people for the wrong reasons, some talks about making money for families, some talks about retribution for crimes committed against an individual.

Putting legalities aside, some is "respectable" and some is not even close.

There will always be a case on the news, where the justice system hands down a lenient sentence on a child predator or child killer. And people will look and say, "I don't care what the courts say, I'd be happy if that person was six feet under".

Well, that's the same case with certain rap. Some can be understood emotionally, and some is so senseless that the very lyrics makes you wonder how anyone could even listen.

There was a case where a man shot his daughters rapist/killer (can't remember?) while the predator was heading to court. He ended up with a very light manslaughter charge, in this case, the courts saw his justification for what he did and handled it appropriately. A song about that is very much different than a song about the predator.

I think my point is, saying that "violence is in music" is equal, is wrong. It's not. So even though there is a bloody history behind the national anthem, it does not mean that any violence in music is the same. And that my friend, is the linear view I am talking about.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I love KRS1

.

KRS1 is a teacher.





posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


It doesn't matter if I condone gangsta rap because I'm not a gangsta rapper. It doesn't represent me in any shape or form.

However, I am American and the star spangled banner is supposed to represent America. I don't find it appropriate our national anthem is a song glorying war, self defense or not. The USA should try to represent itself in a more positive light. Even though its activities are more comparable to that of a street gang than a freedom loving country.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Gangsta rap is a sub genre of rap so of rap so you really can't disagree with me.

Not all rap is violent, most rap artists on the radio nowadays do not talk about anything "gangsta" compared to the 90's.

Violence is in every genre of music, I don't want to censor anything. I like the first amendment.

Violence is violence regardless the motive behind it, it is our society that determines when it is "alright" to kill another person or not. The Taliban might stone a girl for being raped, they think its completely moral, the western world would see it as highly immoral. European countries have banned the death penalty while most states in the USA still has it. Some people like the concept of revenge, others don't. I'm not giving it a linear view, I'm just saying killing people is killing people when you remove the story behind it.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


I like your Tyler the Creator / Yonkers avatar.

Odd Future/ Wolf Gang/ Golf Wang / Wolf Haley is great.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
krs-1 was in a tough crowd. there's nothing more ignorant or stupid in the world as a day-time t.v. audience.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join