Famous For Being Famous Culture: Kim K

Kim Kardashian is one of the most famous celebrities worldwide. She is worth millions of dollars, and she has millions of fans all over the world. She along with her family have their own reality TV show called “Keeping up with the Kardashians”, which is one of the most watched reality TV shows in America. However, some questions need to be addressed; such as, how did Kim Kardashian become famous in the first place? Also, does Kim Kardashian possess any qualities that require our admiration? Furthermore is Kim Kardashian a good role model for women? Throughout the rest of this piece I will answer all of these questions and elaborate on my answers.

As an individual Kim Kardashian does not possess any unique skills or qualities that anyone can aspire to have. Kim Kardashian is an infamous name around the world and yet she cannot sing, dance, act, or even take part in any important discussions such as politics etc. As Barbara Walters pointed out to her and her sisters in an interview “you have no talent”. Although this sounded cruel Walters pointed out the truth. Kim is one of a few celebrities who are famous for not doing anything. Such examples are Katie Price and Paris Hilton. So even though Kim Kardashian is not talented many women idolise her for her looks, but even this is a fallacy. When we see Kim Kardashian on the TV she like all celebrities wears a substantial amount of make up, so if you go to the trouble of looking on the internet and finding pictures of her without make up you will be amazed at what wonders make up can do for women. So Kim Kardashian is clearly not as good looking as what people believe, and as you read this, there probably are young girls who are ashamed of their looks in comparison to Kim Kardashian and other celebrities pushed out in the media.

Since Kim Kardashian is famous despite not possessing any talent or qualities, the question that remains is how did Kim Kardashian become famous? Kim Kardashian first rose to prominence from a sex tape with her former boyfriend and R & B singer Ray J. This sex tape went viral all over the internet, and from that, Kim Kardashian became famous. However, Kim Kardashian did gain some publicity earlier on because she had a friendship with Paris Hilton. Additionally, her family were in the spotlight from the OJ Simpson trial, as her father was one of OJ Simpson’s lawyers. So her family name Kardashian is what became known and not necessarily Kim. However the vast majority of people including myself know Kim Kardashian from her sex tape with Ray J.

Overall, Kim Kardashian is a bad role model for young women, as she does not advocate any positive moral teachings to women. Additionally, she does not help the poor and malnourished children in the world. She rather spent ten million dollars on a wedding when the marriage lasted just seventy two days! Even though some of the money was sponsored it still doesn’t acquit her for the amount of money her and her family put into the wedding. This is not only sad but disgraceful. Imagine all of the starving children that could have been spared had she put her humanity before her ego. Kim Kardashian is one of the worst characters in the celebrity cult: she degrades women; she promotes an extreme form of capitalism; and rather than helping to push for change in the world she serves to maintain the global status quo of getting rich and spending as much money as possible on products that you do not need. This is the actual purpose of the celebrity cult. So the only time my opinion of Kim Kardashian will change is when she stops promoting misogyny, capitalism and greed and starts to help the poor children of the world with her money. Furthermore, instead of tweeting nonsensical stuff on her twitter, she should help to tweet positive and enlightening tweets to the millions of her followers. Kim Kardashian should realise that her along with other celebrities have the power to bring about change in this world. With just one tweet she can organise mass demonstrations against the establishment. Imagine if Kim Kardashian and others started to tweet about the corruption of the banks and the government? A worldwide revolution will happen instantly. So all hope is not lost for Kim Kardashian and other celebrities, they have to wake up or remain dead (I mean mentally dead). 

Written by Aaron Laari

Hip Hop on Trial

A few weeks ago there was an online debate called “Hip Hop on Trial”. The motion was “Hip Hop doesn’t enhance society, it degrades it.” The panel put forward many arguments for and against the motion. Some of the arguments put forward were convincing and others were not. In the rest of this article I will give my own answer to the motion and briefly highlight some of the arguments made.

In my opinion one cannot simply generalise all of hip hop and state that hip hop degrades society. This is because Hip Hop is very broad, it is a culture with various aspects involved in it. So much that it cannot be generalised. As Dr Michael Eric Dyson pointed out if there is a debate on Hip Hop being negative there should be a debate on the Church with the motion “The Church on Trial” because some Christians have repeatedly shown prejudice, discrimination and injustice towards women.

Hip Hop has produced, many great artists with positive messages such as: Public Enemy, Tupac, Nas, Lowkey, Akala, Logic, Immortal Technique and M1 Dead Prez, Lauryn Hill and many more. All of these aforementioned artists rap about social issues from political, economic, racial or general global issues as well as encouraging the empowerment of women. These artists have not only helped organise movements, but they also have helped to spread knowledge to the masses through their music. For example, Akalas motto is “Knowledge is power”. This motto encourages his listeners to read in order to liberate their minds from false information. Furthermore, Hip Hop has given many African Americans a sense of cultural belonging. After being distanced from Africa the African diaspora in America needed something to identify themselves with. Hence came Hip Hop and all of the other black movements in America such as the “black is beautiful” movement in the 1960s. So the notion that Hip Hop degrades society is a completely inaccurate statement.

However, I cannot deny the fact that there are a lot of hip hop artists that have attempted to degrade our society. There are many artists who portray nothing but negative images in their music videos and lyrics. Such examples are rappers such as Rick Ross, Lil Wayne, Drake, Big Sean, Nicki Minaj, Tyga, 50 cent, and Snoop Dogg and the list continues. T­­­his list is even longer than the positive artists list, because if I ask a random Hip Hop fan to name me some positive artists, they will only name a few but they are more likely to name a negative artist. So this is a problem that Hip Hop faces. These artists promote misogyny, bad language, and violence, and as Tricia Rose pointed out they also promote “predatory capitalism” because of the materialistic messages and music videos. So it is fair to say that the majority of current mainstream Hip Hop artists are degrading our society and the Hip Hop artists that have positive messages are not being given radio or TV play as Benjamin Zephaniah pointed out in the debate that Lowkey and Logic are conscious rappers but their music is not being promoted by the media.

Nevertheless, it is not only mainstream Hip Hop that degrades society, some underground rappers in Britain and the US are doing exactly the same thing if not worse than what some mainstream artists are doing. Such examples are Uncle Murda, Giggs, DVS, Wacka Flocka, French Montana and more. These underground rappers promote bad messages through their lyrics which mainly consist of violence. So it is evident that elements of hip hop are degrading to our society. However, the dilemma is that it isn’t just generally mainstream hip hop that is degrading our society. Mainstream music can also be degrading such as pop, rock and R&B. For example, Rihanna glorifies a sexual image as was mentioned in the debate, pop artists such as Lady Gaga top the list in terms of being an artist that is ridiculing our society. So in short the media is what is degrading our society and not just hip hop. Additionally, we have films in Britain which always portray young people as delinquent, and pornography shown on social networking Medias such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the television. So all forms of media degrade our society to a certain extent, so to only blame hip hop for the faults in our society is not only bias but unfair. So I assert that the motion should have been “Social media does not enhance society it degrades it?”. This question is far more plausible than saying “Hip hop doesn’t enhance society it degrades it?”

So overall the debate was very enthralling and I tended to agree with a lot of Tricia Roses points, and as hip hop is part of social media, some issues still need to be addressed more formally than how it was in the debate. The issues that need to be addressed on another debate is the use of the N word, calling women b*tches and h*es and encouraging capitalism and materialism in Hip Hop.

Written by Aaron

Homosexuality

*Disclaimer: I use the words Homosexuals and Gays interchangeably and it refers to both gays and lesbians.

Before I get started I am sure many of you will disagree with the things I am going to write and criticize the points I am going to make. You do not have to agree with what I write, that is not the purpose of this post. This is just to express MY OWN personal opinion on the issue.

Recently President Obama expressed his support for same sex marriages. This is a very controversial issue with some people agreeing with what he said whilst there are others who are completely against it.

Growing up in the Black and Christian communities being homosexual was a massive no-no. Homophobic attitudes were very common place and I admit I used to be homophobic myself. I believed that being gay was an abomination, an evil sin, haram etc. Though I had a negative opinion of homosexuals I would never have harmed someone for being gay. I have always been strongly opposed to gay-bashing. I always believed that being gay was a choice and that those who chose to do so were sick in the head. I could not comprehend why a man would choose to be with another man when there are plenty of beautiful women out there and vice versa. It just did not make sense to me. One time in college I was having a debate with one girl who supported homosexuality. One thing she said to me was that "If being gay was a choice why would someone choose to allow themselves to be socially marginalized, victimized and prone to abuse". That really got me thinking deeply, its  true why would someone choose to be gay in a society where they will be treated as inferior and in some cases attacked for it? That was a real turning point in my opinions about homosexuality.

Skip to a few years later and my opinions of homosexuals have changed a lot (Thank God!). I do believe that some people are born with a natural tendency to be attracted to someone of the same sex (I know many people will disagree with this). To explain my point further take the situations where there are men who know deep down that they are gay but have tried to suppress it for years. They get married to women and even have children. But these gay feelings they have are still there, they wish it to go away but it keeps coming back; until it gets to a point where they can no longer hide it anymore. I have met gays who have tried very hard for many years to become heterosexual but it just didn't work. I have not met every homosexual out there but the ones I have met have been very nice people. They are still human beings; not very different from you and I and contrary to belief they do have morals. I don't understand why people spend so much time expressing their hatred towards gays when there are evil people out there such as rapists, pedophiles and serial killers.

*This part is mainly for the Christians or religious people* 
I understand that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong but I interpret it as the physical act which is a sin, not the emotion. If you have gay feelings but do not act on it then I do not see it as committing a sin. The bible also clearly states that it is wrong to lie, steal, fornicate, insult others or gossip and I can guarantee that you all have committed at least one of these sins and probably still do. We are ALL sinners and in God's eyes all sin is sin, none is greater than the other. Whether a man sleeps with another man or a man fornicates with a woman they are of equal weight. I am sick of some religious people getting on their high horse about gays and conveying their hatred towards them (what ever happened to love thy neighbor? or are gays exempt?). These religious people act as if they are perfect and have never sinned (remember the phrase "he without sin cast the first stone"? None of us are without sin so we can not cast any stones!)

At the end of the day if somebody is gay then that is their lifestyle, it doesn't affect me in anyway shape or form, and I do not have an issue with it. If someone is in a same sex relationship and they are happy and not harming anyone they should be allowed to live their lives. They are still people with feelings and emotions and they should not be deprived of their human rights. As cliche as this sounds God is the only true judge and what people do is between them and God.

Written By Dinah

The Dilemma of the West

In a chaotic atmosphere; where the guns are running, the bombs are flying, the bullets are killing, mothers are crying, fathers are dying, children are hiding, blood is splitting, civilians are running. A plea for mercy, and a plea for intervention.

“From the look of things it’s like there are no civilians in Syria” Reynolds Agyapong retorted.  The international community went to Libya to protect them but what happens when a similar situation arises in Syria?

On February 15^th 2011 about 600 activists gathered at Benghazi to demonstrate against the arrest of Fathi Terbil, a human rights lawyer. Little were they prepared to fight and overrun the armoury of by then Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi. Barely a month after the attack, the international community had acted swiftly. By 26^th February the United Nations had passed a resolution for the assets of the Libyan leader and some members of his inner circle to be frozen. By 27^th June an international arrest warrant had been issued for him and some of the members of his inner circle. Most of all on 17^th March the United Nations had passed the Libyan no-fly zone in bid to protect civilians.

With France, Britain and Italy having a keen interest, David Cameron readily released some tornados war craft and Obama supported with some submarines. Berluscuni of Italy gladly gave away his military bases to make the no fly zone successful. Rumours if not facts, also had it that some military experts where deployed by the White House to Benghazi to help the revolutionaries succeed in their bid. With France also secretly giving weapons to Benghazi, there is no doubt that the interest of the West and the International community were very paramount.

In thinking about Reynolds Agyapong’s retort, I asked myself whether there are any differences between what happened in Libya and what is currently going on in Syria. What are the similarities and why is the USA and its allies adopting a different mechanism?

With Homes in disarray and civilians fleeing for safety, Why is the Camerons being so diplomatic in their approach? Are they giving Kofi Annan’s peace deal a try? The very deal for me I believe it’s as potent as the very paper on which they were printed. I have therefore tried to deduce some of what maybe the reason for the slow response of the West and the International community at large.

In the place, national interest may gradually be shifting. Though states like the USA have protection of human rights as one of their national interests, it is becoming very evident that Washington no longer wants to make the mistake they made in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan. Washington no longer wants to be actively involved in any Arab conflict. This was made evident when Washington refused to take command of NATO in the Libya No-fly zone edging Europe to take command.

Another factor to the slow response could also be that the Syrian revolution was probably so close to the political and electoral storms.  With Sarkozy preparing for his election and hence focusing on his campaign, Paris had lost much interest in saving the civilians of Syria. Not only Sarkozy facing election; with Washington also preparing for election later in 2012 therefore shifting the focus intervention to domestic politics. The Mayoral election in the UK may also have changed the sight of David Cameron whereas Mario Monti of Italy too new in office and busily finding a way out of the Italian economic crisis to interfere in Syria.

It is also possible that the international community have drained their coffers much enough that they do not want to add any extra cost to what they have already incurred. Although the actual true cost of the Libyan no fly zone may be known in monetary terms, the Reuters News Agency on 22^nd March reported that the Libyan no-fly zone could cost the coalition about 1 billion dollars. Although this may not be the actual figure of the cost of operation. I believe the figure may not be very far from this coat. The question therefore is whether or not the international community is willing to lose such a large amount of money at a time when key states are struggling with their Economic growth.

On the other hand the Arab league have not provided enough support for the West to do anything similar to that of Libya. This is seen as them not being as vibrant as they were in the Libyan revolution. In the latter they readily gave their blessings to the International community to intervene whereas in that of Syria they are much interested in sending numerous monitors and observers whose presence is as meaningful as nothing. Where is Qatar and Saudi Arabia who supported the international community to enter Libya?

Could it also be that the international community took revenge on Gaddafi’s Libya for his numerous acts against them? The Lockerbie bombing among others things may also be a reason to make the international community to run against him; whereas the international community may not have scar against Bashar al-Assad. It could be Tripoli had reconciled with the international world before Gaddafi’s fall. However it cannot be said that the international community had completely forgotten and forgiven him for his atrocities.

Though there may be other several reasons, these are what I can put out from my personal analysis. In spite of whatever the reasons may be it is my sincere prayer that Syrians come to enjoy the very freedom which all men ought to enjoy without pleading for it. As I have always maintained; the worse form of slavery is living under a dictator. A state never belongs to an individual it belongs to all citizens. All wisdom is not a residence of one’s head so every man has a right to have a say in government.

written by a Guest blogger