"Wanna buy five copies for my mother"
The latest edition of Rolling Stone arrived yesterday and I almost choked on my soy nuts.
Don't get me wrong - I loves me some Kanye West and I'm all kinds of down with social statements. Big fan! Besides, Rolling Stone articles are the best in the business. However, I couldn't help but wonder what the editor of this traditionally liberal magazine was smoking when he approved this cover.
SIDE NOTE: Howard Stern once offered similar pictures for the cover, but was turned down. Interesting...
I remember reading tough criticism, on the pages of this magazine, for our soldiers kicking the Koran in front of Muslim prisoners. Soldiers were rightfully held to task for disrespecting a religious holy book. At the same time, few journalists suggested Muslim leaders were out of their collective minds to call for violence in response to such desecration.
Would this cover have been rejected if West were dressed like a persecuted holy man Muslim's revere? Those fundies got their undies in a wad when Sharon was photographed just walking around the Temple Mount. Imagine what they'd say if Rolling Stone photographed a half-naked Madonna gyrating all over the Dome of the Rock. (Been there, by the way. Lovely place. Lovely people.)
Should Christians blow up some sh*t because this cover disrespects their Christ? Or is it okay because Kanye West is an outspoken Christian and making a point? (To be fair, inside the magazine, he is imitating Ali as well. So I suppose that counts for something.)
My last question: Is it okay to disrespect God or Christ because, let's face it, Jews and Christians are reasonable people and won't behead anyone, but lay off Muhammad the Prophet and the Koran because those g*ddamned Muslims...we don't know what the h*ll they're gonna do?
I'm not advocating censorship or saying stores shouldn't sell this recent descent into bad taste. Rolling Stone's cover simply demonstrates a double-standard in the world today. Only certain faiths and ethnicities are to be feared. I mean, revered.
And that's the most disrespectful part of all.
posted by kate @ 5:56 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
"Would this cover have been rejected if West were dressed like a persecuted holy man Muslim's revere?"
Yes, but this sort of thing is inconsequetial. Will this cover be remembered in two years, I doubt it.
I do agree with you about the double standard.
"Only certain faiths and ethnicities are to be feared. I mean, revered."
I wonder (out loud) if the Muslim faith will ever become moderate enough to mock or critisize with fear of severe rebuke. Probably not in my lifetime.
I'm not really sure where you come down on this whole issue. It appears as though you have gotten your panties in a wad over this cover.
You may be surprised to know I have have an opinion on this... ;-)
Actually, I am surprised at how little attention this is getting. I mean, it was on drudge about a week ago and I seem to remember it on the news for a day, maybe two. But does anybody remember when NAS did this very same thing with one of his video's. I thought they were going to crucify the man. this seems more of a bleep on the irritated radar of christians and I think it symbolizes one of two things - the declining influence of the rap music industry, and/or the declining influence of MSM such as Rolling Stone.
The fact is this sort of thing is done for shock value only and it really isn't that shocking anymore to see a black man trying to defame his culture and a liberal MSM who is willing to mass market their agenda.
Now, if he had dressed up like Allah, that would be something to talk about.
That was the shortest amount of time I've been out all week!
i walked by the newstand, the cover caught my eye, and i thought, "damn, Seal has a got a new CD out?..." thanks for clearing that up.
It's not shocking, I'll agree. Not anymore. And shock-value was probably the overall goal - which I have no problem with usually. However, I don't think it's a good idea to offend an entire religion and it's hypocritical when a magazine attacks a group of people for being disrespectful and then is disrespectful themselves.
Seal...good one.
A Black Jesus is what really pisses of those white evangelicals. But white evangelicals don't read Rolling Stone. Maybe someone can tell them about it. Some christians have blown sh*t up, set fires in the past in the name of their faith.
I have to wonder in Kanye would dress up as a muslim. He can't profess his faith as a christian dressed as a muslim now can he? Or maybe it is the he was persectuted (live on the East coast, editted on the West) for saying what others were thinking about Bush after Katrina.
Perhaps there is a hidden message here. One about christians and which ones are really spreading the love and message of the Prince of Peace, the "rock-star" or the "war president." Or perhaps it is like most things, subjective to the viewers impressions and sensitivities.
As for, Sharon was trying to incite trouble during his visit. And he got it. Just like the soldiers were trying to get a reaction for desecrating the koran.
No religion is sacred enough to not be made fun of. Sadly, the wars of man tend to waged for the folly of religion.
Oooh, that hat looks painful.
Looks like K.W. is the gold diggah...
I can't believe I didn't even get recognition for knowing who NAS is/was.
C'mon Kate, show me some love.
truth or death...
get along on that ann coulter link.
This link below is funny and a must see if you haven't already. A bit off subject but if you wondered why Kanye said what he said about Bush consider what "black bush" would look like to white america in the following:
http://www.youtube.com/w/Black-Bush?v=S0ms8R5ivXE&search=black%20bush
or
http://www.youtube.com/?v=S0ms8R5ivXE
it's worth the cut and paste so quit ya moanin' and groanin'
I'm actually quite pleased to see the public's bs detector is still working somewhat well, because this cover is garnering zero buzz.
Rolling Stone stopped being edgy a while ago. Sure they have a decent political column here and there, but this is also the magazine that has put Clay Aiken and Ruben Studdard on the cover. John and Yoko it is not.
The Village Voice has a pretty funny write-up about the cover.
That writer is one bitter baby. Funny though.
I get Rolling Stone in the mail. I didn't really pay too much attention to the cover. I looked at it today, on this website. I am not upset about it. I think he is trying to represent the fact that he is being persecuted like Jesus was. That's all. I was raised a Christian. I am not sure what I am now. I was an atheist for a while, until my son nearly died. After that I started to believe again. But not sure what I believe.
Sharon's visit was coordinated in advance with the wakf, and was not perceived as a provocation. There was not even a hint of an objection. Then again, why should or would a visit to another's holy site be considered a provocation? Was the Pope's visit to the Western Wall perceived as a slight? Once again, there are two standards being applied in the world today. One for the Moslem world and one for the rest of the world.
Don't allow yourself to be manipulated and duped.
Post a Comment
<< Home