Two weeks ago Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit Action Network and representatives from Pepsi met and were able to come to an agreement in order to avoid a threatened hip-hop boycott of Pepsi products. Although Pepsi ultimately gave in to Simmon's demand that they donate millions of dollars to The Ludacris Foundation, a music-oriented children's charity, in many respects it is a shame that the boycott never materialized. It could have been a chance for the hip-hop community, which has a history of being victimized by the conservative right, to stand up for itself.
The boycott was to be a response to the fact that Pepsi, under pressure from conservative talk-show host Bill O'Reilly, pulled a commercial featuring rap artist Ludacris, only to later air one featuring Ozzy Osbourne. Although Osbourne also has every right to film Pepsi commercials, it became obvious to those inside the hip-hop community that a double standard exists. Ludacris had come under fire for \sexually explicit"" lyrics, but Osbourne is a man with a far worse track record, notorious for taking hard drugs, torturing animals, worshipping Satan and mumbling an endless stream of profanity. Sure, Ludacris may rap about casual sex, but he never advocates violence or violence against women, while Osbourne, on the other hand, has actually attempted to murder his own wife.
Perhaps the most unsettling aspect about this story is, well, the O'Reilly factor. O'Reilly clearly holds a great deal of power, as evidenced by his ability to make a major corporation pull an ad campaign within hours, but what were his motives? Why pick on Ludacris? O'Reilly seldom speaks out against other sexually explicit content; on the contrary, he's even created some himself. In fact, passages from O'Reilly's own novel, ""Those Who Trespass,"" such as ""he slipped her panties down her legs, and, within seconds, his tongue was inside of her, moving rapidly,"" are far more explicit than anything Ludacris has ever recorded. Likewise, O'Reilly had no problem with Pepsi using Britney Spears as a spokesperson, even though her image is blatantly more sexual than Ludacris', and clearly targeted towards an even younger audience.
O'Reilly's true motivation for challenging Pepsi's Ludacris campaign is probably best understood by his inability, when asked, to name a hip-hop artist that he felt would be appropriate as a Pepsi spokesperson. Like so many on the right, O'Reilly is of the mindset that all hip-hop, regardless of its content or message, is inherently offensive and inappropriate.
One thing is sure, however, O'Reilly isn't alone. Many others on the conservative right have thrived on attacking hip-hop. Some, like The American Family Association, who battled a then controversial 2 Live Crew in the early '90s, do so for family values or moral reasons, albeit earning a great deal of funding and publicity in the process.
Others, like the thinly-veiled white supremacy group American Renaissance, attack rap on the false belief that the music advocates violence against Caucasians. On their Web site is a list of hip-hop lyrics, the majority of which were taken out of context, that they consider dangerous or ""the real hate speech."" Only when one considers the amount of money that goes into these right-wing organizations can the full scope of what hip-hop has to work against be grasped.
This is precisely why the Pepsi boycott would have been so important. It would have been a chance for the hip-hop community to demonstrate its clout. With rap artists like 50 Cent selling over 844,000 albums in one week, hip-hop is a cultural force easily capable of taking on its opponents, be they censorship advocates, white supremacists, or talk-show hosts unable to back up their reactionary viewpoints. Rap music has a far larger audience than O'Reilly will ever have and when the those in the hip-hop community finally mobilize or follow through with a warranted boycott, they'll find that they'll be the ones with the power to make sponsors withdraw from O'Reilly's show.
