Sister Souljah > William Shakespeare

She didn't stop there, YF. That is only part of the point she addressed. She didn't say her work was more engaging to urban readers. She said it was better. She didn't complain it was racism to question if her work is more relevant to an urban audience. She inferred that racism kept her work from being considered on the level of Shakespeare's.

Either you knew that and don't care about the truth or you aren't understanding what she said.

 

You don't think lasting cultural impact is a way to evaluate writing? You can't possibly believe all of the stuff you post on this site. Really, you can't.

 

Shakespeare could be the greatest writer of all time, if only he wrote it.

 

Um, no. It has nothing to do with quality.

I'm also not sure how you can compare cultural impact to someone who died centuries ago to someone who is still alive and writing.

How can you predict her longterm cultural impact or influence?

What was the cultural impact of Moby Dick when Melville was alive? How many writers had Edgar Allen Poe influenced when he was alive?

 

Shit, he can't even get his picture on bubble gum cards.

 

In other words, her resume is incomplete. Yet another reason the comparison is ridiculous.

No, we don't know what lasting impact she will have, but his was massive and you can't assume hers will come anywhere close to that level. Not if you want to be part of a rational discussion.

 

Now that would be a legitimate point of discussion.

 

If she'd claimed she would have more of a "lasting impact", your post would be relevant. But, she made no such claim. You're the one who entered it into the conversation.

 

Lasting impact is a measure of a writer's work. It shows that it was good enough to reach not only contemporaries, but people from future generations as well. That is one of many things that speaks to the quality of Shakespeare's work. So which is it? Do you truly not understand how to properly evaluate literature or are you just going to keep dishonestly tossing out anything that doesn't serve your argument?

 

Buncha baby-faced punks weren't going to amount to shit.

 

You don't get what Souljah is saying. You're not trying to get what she's saying. And, it has everything to do with your white privilege.

Souljah rejects the idea that the "best" writers of all time have already been chosen. She resents the idea that we've collectively decided that an all white club of the "best" writers of all time has been carved onto a figurative Mt. Rushmore, and no further alterations can be made.

She's offended that the Star-Ledger interviewer is shocked that he has the nerve to even mention the Bard in reference to her own writing.

And, the interviewer's reaction exposes her privilege as well. She totally misses her point, and instead focuses on ,how dare this uppidity Black bitch compare herself to the greatest English language writer of all time!

But, read how she introduces the topic, it's about activism, it's about encouraging a new curriculum that encourages African-American authors and consumers:

Q: What causes are you active in right now?

A: Creating a new curriculum all around the world in literature, I consider that to be activism.

And, even when the interviewer expresses shock at her Shakespeare "comparison", Souljah is thoughtful in her response:

Is it wrong for an African person being superior to a European? It does not matter to me or how much reverence the name has. African people are always caught up in an inferiority complex and I do not have one.

And, she's absolutely right.

That's a message that needs to be delivered to African-Americans, and we should support it, not mock, and condemn it. We have an African-American President. So, an African-American parent can rightly tell their son (and/or daughter) that they can grow up to be President, but can't tell them that they can grow up to be as good a writer as Shakespeare? Why is one a truism, but the other offensive to you?

 

And, btw, the press coverage of African-American women -- especially in the fields of entertainment and media -- that paints them as angry bitches whenever they don't show proper deference to the white power structure is absolutely racist, and it's coming from the liberal left.

The coverage of Nicki Minaj sets the bar, but the reaction to Souljah is part of it as well.

This article about Minaj nails it:

Nicki Minaj’s Racist Media Coverage

Sadly, the tabloid media—and by extension, much of the pop culture media landscape—can’t stop painting the pop diva as the “angry black woman.” And it needs to stop.

According to Us Magazine, Page Six, and a bunch of other people with a lot of time on their hands, Nicki Minaj “shaded” Jennifer Lopez at the AMAs.

The alleged “shading” took place when host Lopez opened the ceremonies with a medley of the year’s biggest tracks, including Minaj’s “Anaconda.” When Minaj’s track came on, the camera panned to the star, revealing her expressionless face looking absentmindedly at the camera. What kind of shade! Apparently, this revelatory angle constitutes beef, because some people on Twitter say so and Twitter is journalism now.

While Minaj quickly dismissed the social media accusations with a pointed “lol,” that didn’t stop major media outlets from publishing articles like, “Nicki Minaj in ‘total bitch mode’ at AMAs.” Minaj most likely doesn’t have a problem with Jennifer Lopez, but it’s clear that the media has a problem with their coverage of Nicki Minaj. Whether she’s being portrayed as a troublemaker, a bitch, or a diva, the racist undertones of the overarching Minaj narrative are about as subtle as… well, Nicki Minaj.

Nicki Minaj’s Racist Media Coverage