A call for a boycott of anything at this point in our country's history would not be that surprising, considering the political climate in both the domestic and foreign realms. From the possible war with Iraq to the upcoming cases dealing with affirmative action, there is plenty for everyone to choose from to protest. Though these are noble topics, there is something brewing on the horizon dealing with commercialism and, very possibly, covert racism. Hip hop mogul Russell Simmons, CEO of Island Def Jam Records and the head of the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, is considering calling a boycott of all Pepsi products by "all artists and supporters of hip hop culture." And the ultimate reason behind such a forceful call to arms? Pepsi hypocritically cancelled an ad featuring Ludacris last year, and a boycott is justified on the basis of racial preference in endorsement.
Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, noted to be one of the most visible rap critics over the past six months, made his first objectionable statements about the music genre in protest of Pepsi's choice of rapper Ludacris as a spokesperson last summer. Pepsi decided to cancel the Ludacris promotion in August, just one day after O'Reilly's segment criticizing the company for using the rapper appeared on air. Both O'Reilly and his viewers cited the rapper's notably foul lyrics, questionable appropriateness and general morality as reasons for not running the ad. This, of course, was a reasonable action requiring no defense from Pepsi -- that is, until last month.
So what is the Pepsi twist? This year the company signed a promotion deal featuring none other than Ozzy Osbourne, the notoriously dirty punk rocker of the '70s. According to the Associated Press, Simmons saw this double standard: "At a news conference, Simmons said he didn't have a problem with Pepsi's decision at the time, and that it was Pepsi's right to pull the commercial. But he objected when he saw an ad for Pepsi Twist during the Super Bowl that featured the Osbournes, whose MTV show is filled with audio bleeps to block foul language" ("Hip Hop mogul says boycott Pepsi," Feb. 8).
Simmons says that the boycott will continue until Pepsi apologizes to Ludacris, donates $5 million to the emcee's charitable foundation and returns his commercials to the air. Pepsi spokesman Larry Jabbonsky issued a statement saying, "The Ludacris situation was unfortunate for all concerned. We learned from it, and we moved on. We completely understand and respect Russell Simmons' passion for promoting hip-hop music, and we are working with him and others to do just that." Simmons responded, "In hip-hop, our idea is if you don't want us, we don't want you."
Though there is clearly some cause for dispute here, what seems to be an underlying factor in this matter is Bill O'Reilly himself. To be so critical of the hip hop genre and specifically call out the Pepsi Company to cancel ads featuring a rapper, he was unduly silent when Pepsi chose to release ads containing Ozzy Osbourne during the Super Bowl. The question arises as to whether Ludacris' being black and Ozzy's being white had anything to do, even remotely, with this circumstance. Although Simmons did not make mention of race in his statement concerning this ordeal last Wednesday, there seems to be an underlying agenda when people make attacks on hip hop and hip hop culture. One cannot deny the racial stereotypes that are connected to music. Because so many people who embrace hip hop culture are not black, Russell made appeals for those who do claim it as their own to speak out against Pepsi. Clearly, it would truly be ludicrous for anyone to place Ozzy Osbourne at a higher moral plane than Ludacris. Not to mention, when did music begin making the man? As pop icons, both deserve endorsement and can hold the bottom line in business: generating sales and income.
No one must spend time defending either one of these musicians, their lives or their morals. However, the Pepsi ad conflict looks to provide yet another example of the double standard existent in American society. There is racial hypocrisy at work in this case, but what is most interesting is that Simmons, in his own best interests, will perhaps never point that out. The same people buying Eminem are those sitting at home watching "The Osbournes."
Will Pepsi pull the Osbourne ads? Probably not. At best, they will settle things and allow the Ludacris ads back on the air. The point, however, is that such subtleties in culture and corporate decision-making may reflect greater structural problems in our society, as well as biases in the minds of people like O'Reilly. Though worse things have occurred in our society recently, it is important to know how the system works. Simmons is more than justified in his call to boycott. I just hope I won't have to stop enjoying my Pepsi in the near future over this.
(Amey Adkins' column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at aadkins@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | YesterdayBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
