We can’t decide if what Lil Ric does is smut or ‘we culture’. Please help us to finalize our opinion. Lil Ric has become very popular in Barbados, we are asking why. His program ‘Guinness Rush Hour’ is one of the most popular programs on 95.3 on the STARCOM Network. No doubt this program rakes…
We can’t decide if what Lil Ric does is smut or ‘we culture’. Please help us to finalize our opinion. Lil Ric has become very popular in Barbados, we are asking why. His program ‘Guinness Rush Hour’ is one of the most popular programs on 95.3 on the STARCOM Network. No doubt this program rakes in mega-dollars for Vic Fernandes and crew.
Remember the question now, SMUT or CULTURE?
Related Story
SMUT, but that’s what we like!!! It’s we culture, so they say.
mmmm looks like smut to me, but…. unfortunately this kind of dancing is our culture.
I thought it was illegal to wear the Bajan flag as clothes?????????
not quite smut but definitely cultural but I also think that ballet, classical music, jazz, modern dance,reggae, calypso,Madd performances, Laff it OFF, the Green Room Players, The yearly Pantomine ( st Winifreds and St Ursulas) and many other things form part of our culture. I think we are blessed with a wide variety BUT I think that they are those that believe ONLY the most vulgar aspects of our culture is OURS! I don’t agree that this is so…
first
define your terms
SMUT
what is smut
CULTURE
what is culture ?
It’s a bit of both !
How can something be wrong with this when its no different to what Pinelands Creative Workshop or Dance National Afrique, or even Kadooment day where thousands of costumed revellers led by members of the church do?
Am I missing something in the video?
The real question David, is not about Lil Ric, or the Cornrows or KB. It is about us as a nation.
The real shame is that there is really nothing
‘wrong’ with these things… after all, what really do we mean by ‘wrong’ and ‘right’?
The only true difference between royalty and the lowest levels of society is in the ‘standards’ accepted as normal and ‘right’.
Royalty sets for itself, and willingly subscribes to high standards in everything it does. the manner in which they eat.
the way they speak, dress, walk, behave in public etc.
‘Non royals’ never see the point of such standards….. They just see a snobbish waste of resources, time, money and an assault on their ‘freedoms’…
This is not a winnable argument David.
Class is Class, but form is only temporary….
I enjoyed watching Mr Matthew Farley squirm and wriggle as he tried to explain to angry Bajans his fear that the line always continue to fall when once the lowering of standards commence.
Does Farley understand why his own people crucified Jesus?
Jesus dared to ridicule their form of religion and Laws and to insist on higher standards (love thy neighbor as thyself.?..)
He demonstrated their hypocrisy and false righteousness…. Dem boys was vex hear?
The fact that so few can understand Farley’s point clearly outlines the challenges that our young people face…with parents who have such low standards for themselves.
When I was young, I never really understood why my mother insisted that we sat down at meals, used proper utensils, kept elbows off the tables and chewed like ‘proud human beings’…. I suspect that she didn’t really understand either…. but as I said “Class is Class…”
Obviously Farley understands the inevitable result when children are raised in an environment where everyone is free to ‘do as they like…’ he sees it every day.
…listening to his detractors (including Adonijah and Trevor Marshall), it is not difficult to understand their defense of low standards. These are not shining examples of excellence in grooming.
My concern lies in the silence of those who must know that Farley is right…..
Bush tea and we wonder where the old saying ‘a little learning is a dangerous thing’ came from. If a large section of the Barbados public has become concerned with sliding standards and we choose to make a stand, isn’t that an honourable thing? In todays world there is no position which cannot be questioned in law. The last time we checked man made laws.
It is time to make a stand people. Some innocent people will be found guilty but if a small few must pay the price for the majority, it shall be done.
> “Some innocent people will be found guilty but if a small few must pay the price for the majority, it shall be done.”
That seems a little bit flippant. Are you sure you meant just that?
But on the “Is it SMUT or CULTURE” question, I suppose it is whatever you wish to call it, since there is no way to adequately define either term. And if we can’t even come close to defining our starting points then what hope do we have of reaching a meaningful conclusion.
We inevitably get ourselves in a muddle (as did Matthew Farley) when we try to adjudicate on such matters – What hairstyle is acceptable? Is Senator Griffith less of a man for plaiting his hair or Mrs Thompson less of a woman for cutting hers? Whose measure of masculinity and femininity are we relying on anyway? Is dyeing your hair black to cover the greys acceptable but dyeing it bright orange for the sake of fashion too radical? Earrings yes but nose rings no? Naked Renaissance sculpture = high art, but a ‘skimpy’ Kadooment costume = low art? Middle-Eastern belly dancing kosher but West-Indian ‘pooching-back’ vulgar?
In the end, all that can be done is to say “to each his own”, which actually is a sign of a maturing tolerant society rather than one based on strict taboos.
‘to each his own’ is the lowest common denominator. Any basic animal can do that.
…no class…
but it seems to me tht the problem will keeping coming back to who makes the final judgement of what is classy or classless, what is smut or culture, what is fashionable or faux pas.
then what rational argument would tht person put forward that we as a society can collectively subscribe to. “this thing is smut because…” or on the other hand “this thing is culture because…”.
rather than being the lowest common denominator, “to each his own” seems to me to be the most rational position to take.
this is not to say that a person shouldn’t feel disgust about something that might rub him/her the wrong way. that is a perfectly natural reaction.
my point is that it is one thing to feel personal disgust but quite another to try to come to some kind of collective agreement about what is disgusting or not. and tht is what some ppl seem to want – some kind of collective condemnation (and therefore intolerance) for the Senator’s hairstyle or Lil Ricks music. a society based on such intolerance seems to me to be more animalistic (i.e. less humane) than one which rationally, and tolerably says “to each his own.”
lol the standard is set by the status quo, it varies from what is genrally tolerated or not to more specifically waht is legal and not. Fundamentally VICTIMLESS things done in private by ADULTS of sound mine can in my opinion be left to each its own. BUT once you are in public or come under the direct expecations of others e.g. your employers, your teachers etc then in my opinion rules ( expectations of behaviour ( etiquette) should be followed).
Ethnographic studies have shown consistently that every society has rules,a certain etiquette etc The issue for us here is not that change doesnt happen but rather that soem seem to be about drastic revloutionary change where it seems not needed, and not well thought out.
I fully understand the sentiments expressed, and of course the easy answer is for each of us to ‘do his own thing’. But in fact we are now exploring the reasons why leadership is critical; and why it DOES make the difference between success and failure.
..so NEIL, as to “who makes the final judgment” – it is those that are LEADERS.
Really good leaders are able to INSPIRE others to high standards.
They are excellent role models…
They inspire us to be the very best that we can be for ourselves – but even more importantly- for our children, for the society in general and for our country.
….this is why it should be a bigger issue than what we may PERSONALLY see as OK or acceptable etc
In organisations with weak leaders, everyone is a law to themselves and the result is chaos….ALWAYS. From Babylon to Rome to the USA, this has been the case….
…we all talk of Singapore – do you understand the genesis of their success? Do you understand the role of EW Barrow in ours?
…there is a way that seems right to the normal mind, but the end thereof is the way of death and destruction….
To neil it would be good if you can share your own definition of SMUT and CULTURE. We assume you must have some idea of what it is?
Neil, you have a reasonable tone.
I cannot comment on either smut or culture since the two may very well be synonymous. See, opinions are always rubbing against each other.
But I do agree with your general position.
Indeed, the world can do with a lot more tolerance than it can with judgements and pronouncements.
I can’t be bothered to play the video but, why does he look like a monkey?!!!!
“to each his own” told to a child who refuses to obey his elders doesnt quite work, does it?????
lorddddddddd the ppl in bim hypocritcal if that was an american music vid it would be a ok i’ve seen american music videos with the women dress more scantily and doing more proactiv dancing even our own rihanna dresses scantily in her vids but we would buse anyone who critise her why cause she is doing the american thing leave the bajan entertainers anlone let them do them thing
this debate is happening becau’ we live in a white man’s world
come on people no one has yet define the term
SMUT
the term
CULTURE
homework for today : start here first, take the time and research the terms and then return to this subject
btw what did my former teacher -tutor – trevor marshall had to say about this subject
Lets not get too academic about this.
Its all culure.
But there is high culture that inspires and low culture that serves only to entertain.
No guesses for which this is. That said, we need both. Man cannot live on Lamming and Clark alone. But, best we don’t try living and Lil Ric alone either.
It’s not smut, and it’s not culture.. but not living in the island, I might not be familiar with the new definition of “culture” anymore.
It looks like a man worked hard on the video, came up with a good mix of provocativeness and some new dance moves and put it out there. Bravo Lil’ Rick! Didn’t he do a reply to the dub song “Driving Skill” back in the day?
Frankly, I find it depressing that we’ve always got to be ‘copying the americans or the jamaicans’!!!!
Is there no other way, which is more decent, yet genuinely, entertaining?!!
#
Bimbro // March 1, 2008 at 3:08 am
I can’t be bothered to play the video but, why does he look like a monkey?!!!!
————————————————————————-
On a serious note . David, do you think that some of these ignorant posts by Bimbro should be censored?
Maybe he like to be provocative and keep the debate lively but I think this last comment is very derogative and highly insulting.
Technician, so many comments, so many views. Given the many different opinions which we get there is bound to be disagreement. Our suggestion is if you and Bimbro can’t get along, discuss issues with others.
We agree that Bimbro can be a little extreme sometimes but we think he feeds off comments like yours:-)
Mr Gresham
You are putting me in a quandary, …finding myself agreeing with you too often. You seem to be getting like David now. (except of course for immigration. LOL)
‘Culture’ is what ever we do, and accept as a people.
It is not even really ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But it certainly DEFINES the people.
Given a choice, most children and even adults would choose to watch and emulate porn, fights, brawls, and such deviant behaviors than to do maths, Latin, sports or listen to ballads.
The ‘natural’ animal tendency is to gravitate to the base.
Advanced human behaviors are characterized by the ability to do the opposite. Thus you will note that all the successful societies at their peak also excelled in their cultural development. History also shows that their demise coincided with cultural declines to base behaviors.
Unfortunately one needs to be fairly sophisticated to really understand the critical relationship between societal progress and cultural development – it is a spiritual law.
Those who see this as as assault on their personal ‘right of expression’ do not understand President Kennedy’s call to “ask not what your country owes (can do for) you, but rather what you owe( can do for) your country….
I personally have no problem with corn rows, ear rings, or locks. I do have to admit a concern and bias when it comes to males who feel obliged to display traditional female characteristics.
Particularly at a time when we are challenged with the masculinity of our boys I wonder how it is helpful to create role models that send confusing messages to the youth – But it may be that we are seeking to reduce the gap between what is male and female…
…I can tell you the destiny of a society without real men….
smut
Let us go with Historian Trevor Marshall’s definition of culture, it is what the society will accept.
Point taken David, along with advice.
Please forgive the length (comment is split into four parts). I just wanted to give due consideration to the various responses:
> “To neil it would be good if you can share your own definition of SMUT and CULTURE. We assume you must have some idea of what it is?”
but my first point was tht the very task of defining these terms is problematic, especially if we are hoping for a definition tht is usable by an entire society. even if I resort to a dictionary definition in order to answer your question, I wouldn’t gained much. For example, m-w.com says that ‘smut’ is “obscene language or matter” (and it defines ‘obscene’ as “disgusting to the senses”).
but knowing that ‘smut’ is anything that is disgusting to the senses doesn’t help us to decide whether Lil Rick’s song is smut or not. whose senses should we use as the benchmark? mine? my grandmother’s? those of churchgoers or partygoers? should we take a random poll or put it to a general vote?
I just feel that, outside of the personal and the subjective, it is perhaps impossible to come up with a satisfactory collective judgement (and its not as if it is necessary to prevent society from descending to the level of the animals).
which brings me to pt II…
> “..so NEIL, as to “who makes the final judgment” – it is those that are LEADERS.”
once we attempt to move beyond the personal and subjective, then the problem of definition becomes a political problem – political in the sense that someone is mandated to explicitly set the parameters of what it is that they are defining; and political in the sense that they can be held accountable for their choices.
This works better for some things than others. For example, our political leaders find a way to define ‘Barbadian citizen’. (Of course, even ‘Barbadian citizen’ must have at one time or another thrown up some non-trivial political decisions – Is any child born in Barbados a Barbadian citizen? What about if the parents are non-Barbadians? Does the child then have to wait until school enrolment age to qualify?. But someone had to take the decision, and be held accountable for it, because a working definition of Barbadian citizen is necessary for certain state functions to be carried out.)
But I wouldn’t expect our political leaders to find a workable definition of something like ‘Barbadian cuisine’ or ‘Barbadian culture’. Nor would I want them to even ATTEMPT to do so – we don’t need a political decision on whether rice&peas or macaroni pie is Barbadian cuisine in order to enjoy Sunday lunch.
Similarly I would argue that it is NOT our political leaders’ place to define whether something is classy or classless, smut or culture, fashionable or faux pas, since we don’t NEED them to do so. Society can function pretty well without them stepping into that territory. But I concede that I may be in the minority about how much social influence we wish our political leaders to have. It is just that I am a bit uneasy about such paternalism. As someone once said, the state is there to protect us from each other not to protect us from ourselves.
> “BUT once you are in public or come under the direct expecations of others e.g. your employers, your teachers etc then in my opinion rules ( expectations of behaviour ( etiquette) should be followed). Ethnographic studies have shown consistently that every society has rules,a certain etiquette etc ”
yes, some regulation of public behaviour is unavoidable. even so, the rules should be minimal rather than far-reaching. an owner of a food business insisting tht, for health and safety reasons, employees’ hair is kept clean and tht particular items of jewelry shouldn’t be worn is one thing. a universal condemnation of a fashion statement such as tongue rings or cornrows seems quite another
and yes every society has rules. the thing is whether these rules are based on taboos or on reasonable assessment of wht is (minimally) required to safeguard individual freedoms.
> “But there is high culture that inspires and low culture that serves only to entertain.” (Gresham)
> “History also shows that their demise coincided with cultural declines to base behaviors.” (Bush Tea)
higher than what and lower than what? don’t get me wrong, I sense what you’re trying to get at. I too have my own prejudices about certain artforms. but one day I had my prejudices seriously questioned when I saw a couple of freestyle rappers on TV. I was blown away by their obvious lyrical talent. After that, could I possibly say that they were practising a lower artform than say a jazz improviser?
and history repeatedly shows us up for attempting such (unnecessary) value judgements. ppl once thought the idea of professional writing and commercial novels was vulgar – goodness knows wht they would say about Amazon. Impressionism was supposedly not high-art – presumably those early detractors would today burn the Louvre to the ground. and early critics of jazz dismissed it as vulgar, trashy, depraved, unrefined entertainment for the ignorant proletariat and a signal of cultural degradation. but the jive didn’t cause society to crumble nor will the wukkup.
Neil,
Lets’ not make a mountain out of a marl heap… You sounds like an intelligent person… How can you quote a clear definition from Thomas Gresham, and then go on to ask “higher than what and lower than what”?!?
There is a ‘culture’ that is UPLIFTING and INSPIRING. It leads the proponents as well as the audience to WANT to do well, to share (be unselfish), to build, to be the BEST that they can be….
…and there is a culture that is all about ME!! What I want to reflect; What I want!! What makes ME feel good; What I feel is right….and to hell with everyone else (my lawyer will deal with them..)
…which part of this do you find hard to understand?
…and while you are at it, try not to build up your own straw men so that you can knock them down in your arguments….. I never suggested that ‘Political’ leaders were the ones to decide which ‘culture’ is high or low.
I said that it is those that are leaders who decide that…. Those that can inspire others. These leaders can be teachers like Mr. Farley (or more likely teachers like the Headmistress of Springer Memorial who I greatly admire – she speaks with her results while Mr. Farley runs to the press because he enjoys being controvertial.)
Leaders will be in the community, the church, the workplace etc. (The sad part nowadays is that these ‘leaders’ are often not the same as the ‘bosses’ – but that is another issue)
…As we promote more and more of the selfish ‘I and ME’ culture leaders, we will all suffer the result as our society declines…
Bottom line – ask yourself “WHY IS THIS BEING DONE?”
….to uplift others and sections of society positively?
…or to promote self and selfish desires?
…easy!
Culture is the hardest thing to define
As a matter of fact Culture might be considered un definable
just like Love and just like GOD
Every attempt to describe these entities fail and fly in the face of spirituality.(Human existence)
My conclusion is like Love and like GOD, we need to experience LOVE, we need to experience GOD and just forget the definitions because we will run into trouble if we try to explain.
To experience is the key
ok BT
I guess we could keep at this for a whole year and not convince each other one way or the next :o). so i’ll make this my last contribution and look forward to your response. (and if perhaps we hv future opportunities to debate other matters i promise not to make a mountain of a marl heap again :D)
>…and while you are at it, try not to build up your own straw men so that you can knock them down in your arguments….. I never suggested that ‘Political’ leaders were the ones to decide which ‘culture’ is high or low. I said that it is those that are [community] leaders who decide that…. Those that can inspire others.
I concede that I mistakenly interpreted your ‘leaders’ narrowly to mean ‘political leaders’.
but broadening it to community leaders doesn’t strengthen your point. at least with political leaders there is a clear method of deciding who qualifies – i.e. through the ballot box, and if a political leader tries to impose value judgements with which i disgree, again there is a method for me to voice my disagreement – through the ballot box. the ballot box then becomes the final judge of what is right and wrong for a society.
how does that work with community leaders? who qualifies as a community leader? is it someone chosen from on high? do u get to choose ur own community leader, one who inspires you? then do I get to choose mine? Mr. Farley for you as a conservative, Mr. Wickham for me as a liberal, and even Lil Rick for some younger ppl? but then aren’t we are back to square one – i.e. u want the leaders to make the judgements for us, but then who passes judgement on which one of their conflicting judgements is right or wrong for society?
my point is, why bother to even go down that road? wouldn’t it better to have a society of independently minded ppl where ppl didn’t have to wait for someone to foist his/her own value judgements on them and where they could make their own minds up about what is best for them?
>There is a ‘culture’ that is UPLIFTING and INSPIRING…which part of this do you find hard to understand?
yes i understand wht u are trying to get at, but didn’t u understand why i brought those historical examples to show the dangers of publicly decrying one cultural form as ‘low’ and another as ‘high’. Were the members of the Académie des Beaux-Arts (community leaders in their day) right not to be inspired and uplifted by the paintings of Monet and the other Impressionists? Is the ‘Impression, soleil levant’ LOW culture because they publicly decreed it so? u can only safely label something as uplifting and inspiring on a SUBJECTIVE level – what inspires me may not inspire you.
again, let ppl make their own minds up; let them be inspired and uplifted on their own terms.
>…or to promote self and selfish desires?
and just like you I wouldn’t want to see us become a selfish society. but u seem to misunderstand what I mean by invidual freedom and independent mindedness. a society built on individual freedoms AND humanitarian instincts (i.e. sharing, tolerance, etc.) is entirely possible and is what i wish for us. SELF-DETERMINATION is not the same thing as SELFISHNESS.
Neil,
I am really sorry that you would want to make this your last contribution on this subject. It really is a complex matter and an important one.. and I like your approach – especially since I disagree with you.
I think that we have different perspectives.
… I see ‘leaders’ as those who set trends, solve problems and break down (or build) barriers. They don’t have to be elected, chosen or nominated – they just have that quality that puts them out front in trendsetting.
Most ‘elected leaders’, managers etc are not really ‘leaders’. They do polls and find out what is the current consensus and then run off in that direction.
The idea of totally independent thought and actions is unrealistic, even the corn rows are a trend -just copied from a different ‘leader’.
The other problem is -where do you draw the line? what if some brave soul decides to arrive in Parliament wearing a loin cloth? or a female tries the topless style common in some parts of Africa (according to National Geographic)?
Why do you think that ‘UPLIFTING’ is subjective? I think that this clearly denotes generally bringing out the best in most people…. Making better…etc I am pretty sure than we could agree easily on whether a trend is uplifting or self-serving.
Individual freedom is meaningless in reality. In any organisational arrangement, there must be basic ground-rules which supersede any individual desires to the contrary.
What we are discussing in fact, is who sets these organisational ground rules and how they are determined.
At your workplace they are called work rules – and I challenge you to defy them next week in your show of your own ‘individual freedom’…
You can only have ‘self determination’ WITHIN the framework of the accepted organisational norms.
…so while I get your conceptual position, I submit that it is not a tenable position in an organisational (societal) framework.
this debate has not reach any definitive conclusions
are we guilty of a lot of talk without solutions
one thing we like to do is tawk tawk tawk
Mr.Matthew Farley is correct. God bless him for not condoning mediocrity.
The problem is not that standards are too high for many to attain, but that the bar is set so low that even adults believe that low expectations are perfection.
There is also the old saying that there is a time and place for everything.
The youth are looking to us for proper direction. Stop letting them down!
Asiba,
My problem is that I know you personally. It is therefore not easy to take you seriously.
How about using another name on the Blog?
bush I agree with you…I think individual freedoms can apply for the most part to what you do in private . I do believe for example that gays should have the right to have sexual relations in private if those involve are consenting adults.
But in Public there must be standards of behaviour. In the workplace, school and other places where your actions affect other people.Where your presntation reflects the standards of the place you are in.
In certain workplaces the cleints react very negatively to ‘rebellious’ prsentations and that affects the business.
SMUT
Um…all they’re doing is whining I don’t see anythnig inapproptiate about any of the dancers.
Wow are we really becoming so afraid of what non nationals and the church think that we’re beginning to let it hinder our own culture?
Nothing degrading to women about this, they’re not stripping and the men are participating as well, probably wukking up more so than the women too!
It is African culture to celebrate everything. Even sex, (gasp). What we refer to as ‘vulgar’ and ‘base’ once had a place in society. It was called a ‘fertility ritual’ (by the europeans). There is a difference between celebrating sexuality and being lustful. It was Europeans who taught us that dancing that way was ‘low’ and ‘base’ and now we are ashamed of the part of us that wants to wuk up. Wukkin up joyfully is culture, the lustfulness surrounding it is what we were taught. In the same way that nudity has been linked to sex so has wukkin up. ‘Simulating’ sex in public is not the same as actually doing it. Most of you men talk about how vulgar it is but how many of you cover your eyes? hmmm?
You have to be fit to wuk up like these young women today. Would we be even having this discussion if wukkin up was not associated with sexual looseness? If a girl likes to wuk up to music why should every man believe that she is trying to find sex partners as opposed to her just liking the music. Do you realise how silly it is to judge a young woman based on whether she will spin pooch in public or not? Is it base and low to spin pooch only if you are seen doing it? or is it bad altogether. We (black people) were told that we are sex mad and we breed like animals if we are not controlled. I believe this is why we have this pathological urge to stifle anything that seems remotely sexual in expression. After all there is a time and place for that ‘wuffless african dancing’ and it is not in the public ballroooms of ‘royalty’. (If you doubt that africans wuk up you need to watch the Africa channel). Someone here wrote about the standards of ‘royalty’ and aspiring to higher standards . Do you read the daily mail. There are alot of ‘royals’ doing things that are much lower and more base than ‘wukkin up)
On the subject of royalty, do you think Prince Philip or Prince Andrew would describe ‘the gyrations of a nubile negress’ as ‘vulgar’.
In the end if I’m going to hell I would rather in the “dem does wuk up stink” line than the “dem like little boys” line. What about you?
I find it interesting that the most perceptive post here, by The devils advocate , closed the thread. The earlier discussion, was, of course, very interesting and needed to happen, I guess.
I quote from the post:
“There is a difference between celebrating sexuality and being lustful.”
Surprisingly for many, its all in the Bible.
It is a cultural expression. There are many kinds of cultural expression. dance is one, so is painting, so is food, so is religion, so is marriage in all its many forms, so are child-rearing practices, so is body painting, make-up, henna etc, so is body peircing, ear-rings, nose rings, tatoos, and other forms of ritual scarification, so are hairstyles, short hair, long hair,corn-rows, afros, wigs, hats , scarfs and other head coverings, so is rum drinking, wine drinking, beer drinking, whisky drinking and no drinking, so is housing, and the ways houses are organized in a community, chattle house, plantation house, communal house, long houses, kibbuzim, single family house, high-rise, music is a form of cultural expression, calypso, pop, jazz, classical, so is writing, novels, poems, plays, blogs, sport is a form of culturl expression, athletics, cricket, football, golf, swimming, horse racing, baseball Culture is the way a particular people in a particular time and place express their humanity.
It is NOT smut. Smut hurts other people.
And has anybody noticed that all the dincers including Lil’ Rick and slim and fit looking. NOw if only we could get all Barbadians to wuk up for 4 hurs per week we just might beat the obesity epidemic, lower the cost of ealth care, live longer, live better, and just lighten up a bit. In other words 4 hours of wuk up a week may make us healthier, happier and wealthier.
And I wish people would stop saying that corn-rows are a fad. Both my grandmothers, 1886-1957 and 1879-1969 wore corn-rows, and I am expect that they did not invent corn-rows, nor did they learn them from American TV, since TV did not yet exist, and America was only just inventing itself, very likely my grandmother grandmothers grandmothers wore cornrows too. I wear corn-rows, my children wear corn-rows. I am fairly certain that my grand children will wear corn-rows. Whatever corn-rows are, they are NOT a fad. They are very likely an ancient African hairstyle which by the Grace of God survived the Middle Passage. They will NOT go away. We born and find them. We will die and leave them. Get used to it.
J said:
J // May 4, 2008 at 12:00 am
And I wish people would stop saying that corn-rows are a fad. Both my grandmothers, 1886-1957 and 1879-1969 wore corn-rows, and I am expect that they did not invent corn-rows, nor did they learn them from American TV, since TV did not yet exist, and America was only just inventing itself, very likely my grandmother grandmothers grandmothers wore cornrows too. I wear corn-rows, my children wear corn-rows. I am fairly certain that my grand children will wear corn-rows. Whatever corn-rows are, they are NOT a fad. They are very likely an ancient African hairstyle which by the Grace of God survived the Middle Passage. They will NOT go away. We born and find them. We will die and leave them.
*****************************
J, you’re absolutely, right! However, none of that proves that they’re sensible nor look decent! Slavery, also lasted for hundreds of years! Need I say more!
David // March 2, 2008 at 7:23 am
Technician, so many comments, so many views. Given the many different opinions which we get there is bound to be disagreement. Our suggestion is if you and Bimbro can’t get along, discuss issues with others.
We agree that Bimbro can be a little extreme sometimes but we think he feeds off comments like yours
*******************************
David, I jes c diss!! ME!! Extreme?!!!! Never!! Just solid, Barbadian-sensible!!!!
As for Technician calling for me to be banned – as a cannabis-smoker (he told us this himself) that’s a bit, rich! Is n’t that illegal! At least I’m not breaking any laws! Should n’t you be in prison?!
I think my ‘offense’ is much more, acceptable! And you’re actually, employed?!!!? Let’s hope not by the government! I think the Barbadian public deserves better!
*****************************
Bimbro // March 1, 2008 at 3:08 am
I can’t be bothered to play the video but, why does he look like a monkey?!!!!
*************************************
So, Technician, in addition to being a law-breaker, you don’t like gorrilas, OR monkeys!
Lorrrrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddddddddddd!!!! 🙂
BTW, I’ve been on hollidee, again. This time, to Bim!!!!
Did u miss me?
Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddddddd!!!! 🙂
and then women argue for equal rights?
as a woman you would always be viewed as a second class citizen when you do these dance acts.
These dance acts are directed to meet the pleasure of men.
There is a thin line between culture and self respect
If this is culture that means that is is geared towards the objectification of woman
it is smut
what you think um is
‘go dung’ this year 2010 is nothing more than SMUT
Leave a Reply to BimbroCancel reply