Sharon's post: 

            Just as English is now a globalized language, Hip-hop, as a language/genre of music, has a global platform. While its roots are in African-American popularity, its globalized influence has led to both localized appropriation and consequent critiques. “Localized” hip-hop is actually the globalization of Hip Hop, whereby the music and culture is appropriated to local contexts as a means to bring together individuals with similar cultural backgrounds, struggles and stories. Through the medium of hip-hop, both localized and “mainstream” (African-American?) versions of the music relay messages of struggle, poverty, empowerment and transformation. Localized hip-hop differentiates itself in its culture-specific commentaries and critiques on internal struggles and well as its critiques on global media and Western biases. Hip-hop is the means for today’s Indigenous and ethnic-minority youth to showcase their cultural pride and creativity and to simultaneously voice their messages to the world. Artists like K’Naan (Somali-Canadian), A Tribe Called Red (Canadian Aboriginal), Wire MC (Indigenous Australian) and Humble the Poet (Indo-Canadian) use their creative influence and huge following of fans to relay messages strong in pride, frustrations, critiques and celebrations.

            Pennycook and Mitchell (2009) use the examples of prominent Hip Hop artists like K’Naan and Wire MC because they combine traditional musical artistry with digital music to showcase their cultural identity and pride. They critique Western perceptions (e.g. charity commercials) and biases of the struggles faced by marginalized communities. They argue that those marginalized individuals are not seeking the well-intentioned but misplaced advocacy of Western voices; they are capable of articulating their own struggles “more than the outside observer can imagine” (Pennycook & Mitchell, 2009, p. 26). In his incredibly poetic and poignant album The Dusty Foot Philosopher (2005), K’Naan comments on the discrepancies between the Western views on life in an underdeveloped country like Somalia and the realities of life there. His poetry highlights the contradictory nature of Somalia – from the rich art and poetic language to the constant civic struggles – and celebrates the determination by which its people live their lives. His music reflects his vision and his history and uses a mainstream genre to deliver those messages. Similarly, Wire MC uses twenty-first technology as aids in his creative influence to draw on tradition and tell stories of Indigenous struggles and victories.

            If hip-hop as a musical genre is considered prescriptive, does picking and choosing aspects of it to make it more localized weaken its artistic integrity? In what other creative ways can artists like K’Naan, Wire MC and A Tribe Called Red fight against cultural appropriation, racism and prejudice, and external biases? When we stress about “keeping it real,” localized hip-hop does just that. The shift from mainstream to personalized makes this popular genre more accessible than ever, because it can now reach audiences on the other side of the planet from the Bronx, NY. It is a means to keep the avenues of communication within a culture open without compromising on modernity.

            My final question is: With hip-hop as a genre/style spreading globally, why is it still considered uniquely American? Isn’t this just another type of “cultural imperialism”?

             

Reference:

Pennycook, A. & Mitchell, T. (2009). Hip-hop as dusty footprint:  In H. S. Alim, A.       Ibrahim & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Global linguistic flows. (pp.25-42). New York:           Routledge.