Jay-Z Cameos Mao
Posted by Mike E on August 21, 2009
Jay-Z a Maoist?
Wait a second. Does Chairman Mao Zedong make an appearance in the new Jay-Z video?
Um, looks like it.
Run This Town is the second single of Jay-Z’s upcoming 11th studio album, the soon-to-be blockbuster Blueprint 3 (slated to be released September 11). It features Rihanna on the hook and an admittedly masterful verse by Kanye West, who produced the song.
In the just-leaked video, there is also a quick cameo by Chairman Mao, seen as a black-and-white print on the back of a leather jacket at around the 2:54 mark.
Mr. Z often plays with communist references, some of which are commonplace in rap (bourgeois, or “bougie,” plays on the overused get money motif) and some of which are unique (his line “I’m like Che Guevara with bling on, I’m complex” is famous among fans).
But using Mao imagery might be a first, as well as controversial for obvious reasons.
Maoism is blamed in no small part for the deaths of millions, in China and neighbouring Asian countries (Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge were extreme Maoists, and also extremely genocidal). It’s fairly safe to say that in the still Communist-panicked U.S. (have you seen those town halls?), Mao is seen as a villain, without much nuance.
Mao’s Little Red Book is still widely available all over the world, but is generally bought for the kitsch factor. In Beijing, it’s relegated to a tourism trinket, and less often, a source of ironic humour among young Chinese.
But the Run This Town video does not evoke much irony or kitsch, at least on a surface level. It appears as a straightforward statement, albeit probably a fashion statement than anything else.
Jay-Z ran into mild controversy with international symbols in a video for Blue Magic, off his last album American Gangster. In that video, he’s seen flinging around Euros instead of the more traditional American greenbacks. Newspaper columnists and reactionaries derided the rapper for devaluing their dollar. Ridiculously so, but still.
After that, there’s no way the multimillion dollar rapper, former music industry head and all-around savvy entrepreneur would accidentally place Mao in his video.
Director Anthony Mandler says he plays with rebellion in the video, telling MTV, “We live in a very orderly society in America, but when you get into Brazil, you get into the Middle East, you get into Africa, you get into Eastern Europe, when you get into places like that, there’s a different sort of ‘we run this town’ [going on]. There’s less order and more chaos.”
But Mao is only only specific reference to a world leader in the entire clip.
With the aforementioned frantic (and crazy) debates about Communism in town halls across the country, is this the right time for Jay-Z to be flashing iconic images of Mao?
Otto said
Once again historical facts are forgotten. In this article Joshua Errett said:
“Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge were extreme Maoists, and also extremely genocidal”
Newer documents reveal that the Khmer Rouge (Communist Party of Kampuchea to be more exact) made very few references to Mao and considered there revolution “unique” to Cambodia. They didn’t encourage their cadre to read foreign writers, such as Mao. They never claim to be Maoists.
the cold lamper said
“Newer documents”? I assumed it was always more or less common knowledge among people that weren’t simply mindlessly spewing anti-communist drivel that there were fundamental ideological differences between Maoism and the Cambodian communists, and that neither the latter nor the CCP claimed otherwise. (At least not in Mao’s lifetime–China and Democratic Kampuchea moved closer after Mao’s death and the anti-Maoist coup.) Is there some more recent archival scoop I haven’t heard about that further discredits this well-worn slander?
OSP said
hmmm, looks like the video got removed from the website. The video was really good.
Mike E said
I agree with you that the Khmer Rouge were not maoists. And (in fact) their “coming out” as a close ally of China corresponded with the death of Mao in 1976 and the ascendency of his opponents within the Chinese party (who were notoriously anti-Maoist).
In some ways, Cambodia (known then as Democratic Kampuchea) was a figleaf for the new Chinese government in a way similar to the way Cuba served as a figleaf for the Soviet government — i.e. as seemingly radical allies for a very conservative power.
There are a number of pieces on this experience that we could post or link to — including one i wrote a few years ago (which only dealt with parts of this history). I also think the piece in A World to Win (link?) on Pol Pot went deeply into the differences between Maoism and the Khymer Rouge.
Having said that, there was (in some of those argument) a bit of formulaic assumption: I.e. that the correct Maoist path is known, and people who take a different path in a particular country under very particular conditions are not (therefore, by that logic) Maoist. In fact, my view tends to be that Maoists in different situations will do some remarkably different things (including in Nepal, and including in the U.S.) and the somewhat mechanical “Mao said this, but force XXX did that” is not the best method.
As I focused on in my piece: It is important to note that the Khmer Rouge came to power in a deeply impoverished country where agriculture had been devastated by war and U.S. bombing — where bridges, rice mills, transport, roads, livestock on and on had been systematically destroyed. And they arrived in a country where the central city had been swollen by the bombing raids — with hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees being fed by airlifts. From the moment they entered the city, the danger of mass starvation was acute.
In other words, no matter who rose to overthrow the U.S. puppet government in Cambodia would be forced to sweeping and severe measures to restart agriculture, relocate urbanized refugees, prepare national defense, etc.
That said: the Khmer Rouge were not a liberatory force — they were a very harsh and repressive nationalist force who (though occasionally referencing communism in a superficial way) really carried out something quite different — and something that was really horrific on the ground, for the people.
There are many sides to this: the revenge line in class politics, an almost racist distain for muslim and vietnamese people, a economy of labor camps enforced by extreme violence (in at least parts of the country), widespread use of execution as a means of social control, major ecological destruction, and more.
There are a lot of things about that worth studying, criticizing deeply — in order to think through how to avoid such paths and methods.
* * * * * * * * *
On the other hand, what I found interesting in this piece (aside from the reporting on Jay-Z’s cameo itself) is this reminder of what mention of Mao triggers in the mainstream culture and reporting.
The “blame for the death of millions” is a remarkable claim that we need to be able to answer — short, sharp, factual, confident and truthful. I’m thinking we should craft a very simple piece, “Five Answers when They say Mao Killed Millions.” These stories are outrageous and false, and we are able to put solid and convincing answers in a great many hands.
I also found it interesting when the pieced ended like this:
Because i think it is a good time to jump out with a discussion of what communism is — there are left-over cold warriors of the Republican variety screaming about communism, and a new generation (who often hate these reactionaries with a passion) saying “Uh, ok, and what is this talk of socialism and communism about?”
I remember clearly in my own political formation how the flushed faces and spittle of reactionaries screaming “go back to russia” at antiwar protesters made me, as a teenager, think, “Hmmmm, and what is it about socialism and communism that drives these assholes so nuts?”
boris said
The video is online here:
http://www.mtvmusic.com/jay_z/videos/429303/run_this_town_f_rihanna_and_kanye_west.jhtml
Of course, the article itself is clueless and factually incorrect on the historic role of Maoism, the continuing relevance of Maoism around the world and in China, and the use of Mao imagery in hip-hop (this is hardly the first time).
In addition to the Mao jacket, seems like there’s also a bit of deliberate taking on of the Black Panther style – black leather jackets, dark shades, Rihanna with the beret. The video is a good jumping off point for talking about some history …
Black Like Mao: Red China and Black Revolution
Robin D.G. Kelley and Betsy Esch
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ccbh/souls/vol1no4/vol1num4art1.pdf
Zack said
No.
OSP said
People should watch the video. The Mao cameo is really a (very cool) aside to a video that is overall about some sort of a rebellion.
Jay-Z is contradictory. His thing is to have one foot in the “get paid” stuff, and one foot in being about struggle and Black liberation. He has sympathies with revolutionary struggles, he has come a long way since “big pimpin’.”
The video really does have a sort of Panther feel to it, as Boris points out. But at the same time, Jay-Z can’t help but talk about getting paid in the context of this, and he can’t help but take a cheap shot at homosexuality. And Kanye talks about how “this is the life everyone dreams of” in a way that seems to promote the get paid shit right before someone throws a molotov cocktail. It’s kinda “what the fuck” and out of place.
I think there is real value in this video though, especially in its bringing some radical politics to a section of society that normally doesn’t see anything like images of a rebellion seizing a city and a prominent rap artist promoting Mao Tse-tung.
Stiofan said
Mike said:
…what I found interesting in this piece…is this reminder of what mention of Mao triggers in the mainstream culture and reporting.
The “blame for the death of millions” is a remarkable claim that we need to be able to answer — short, sharp, factual, confident and truthful. I’m thinking we should craft a very simple piece, “Five Answers when They say Mao Killed Millions.” These stories are outrageous and false, and we are able to put solid and convincing answers in a great many hands…
The underlying premise of this caricature is the “totalitarian” model taught in high schools and which is firmly embedded in our popular political culture. The ideological basis of “totalitarianism” is to discredit the very idea of revolution by using a schema that says all revolutions go through a process from idealistic to the brutally repressive and therefore become worse than what they replaced. This is how the French Revolution is commonly taught to adolescents. Moving into the 20th century the totalitarian model is used to then equate Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as essentially the same phenomenon creating essentially the same societies in which an all powerful dictator is primarily responsible for “killing millions” and creating a society where everyone thinks and acts alike.
Mike is absolutely right that this bit of indoctrination should be challenged and the record really should be set straight as to the true nature of revolution in general and the
Chinese revolution in particular. Where I start in my practice is to show how the “nazism = communism” is utterly and totally false based on some very simple historical analysis.
In the specific case of China there has been some attempt to debunking anti-communist propaganda. For all their bizarreness, the MIM did actually publish some useful information on this question in particular discovered a glaring mathematical flaw in that old standby, “The Black Book of Communism.” There is also a new generation of Chinese scholars working in American universities and publishing their work in English based on actual research using Chinese language sources – a novelty for a great deal of speculative books on the early history of the PRC. More needs to be done to popularize this information as Mike proposes.
Stiofan said
Let me give the proper credit for Mike’s entire quote:
Adrienne said
After watching the video I got the impression that Mao appearing on the back of that jacket is about as radical and revolutionary as some rich corporate asshole hanging Warhol’s image of Mao above the posh leather sectional in his penthouse loft in Manhattan.
All flash, no substance.
Then I went and took a look at the lyrics, which only furthered that impression.
Boris wrote:
“In addition to the Mao jacket, seems like there’s also a bit of deliberate taking on of the Black Panther style – black leather jackets, dark shades,”
I agree. A very conscious nod to BP style is there — but minus the substance of what they were about.
“Rihanna with the beret”
Yeah, wearing a beret, but I’m afraid she misses out on the Angela Davis award, because she sports it with a veil dangling off of it, not to mention a trashy fur stole, thigh-high boots with four inch heels, and micro shorts to show off that “ass that’ll swallow up a g-string.”
Last thought: I get the feeling that the town they’d run would likely be pretty much indistinguishable from the town we’ve already got.
SK said
A little off the topic, but… Kanye’s verse totally out of place and uneccesary and makes the song too long anyways.
SK said
I’m not sure that the town they’d run would be indistinguishable, but point taken.
Here’s a good Jay-Z song about Katrina:
the cold lamper said
I don’t think Kanye’s verse is out of place; on the contrary, it nicely compliments the overall mixed message of the song and video. And it hardly makes it too long either (if it counts for anything, the video is about half a minute longer than the normal song, which starts rather abruptly the moment Rihanna begins singing).
Overall, I wouldn’t be too dismissive — if we or anyone else can seize on this little cameo as an opportunity to get people talking about revolution, I’m all for it. A work of art never simply has the exact effect the creators intend it to have. There’s no reason why a politically confused piece like this can’t play an objectively positive social role, anymore than a consciously progressive work can’t nonetheless play a reactionary role (Springsteen’s Born In The U.S.A. being the case-in-point everyone seems to cite in the latter instance).
But then, I’m probably just biased cuz I love Jay-Z and Kanye, and am looking forward to picking up Blueprint 3 when it drops next week…yes, I have no taste whatsoever.
the cold lamper said
Here’s another good example of Hova’s mixed messages. Notice in particular the last few lines of verse two, where he slyly exposes the Reagan administration’s complicity in the international drug trade, while also half-bragging about his own bit part in it:
saoirse said
I am all for Jay-Z’s mixed messages opening up a dialogue about revolution. we can seize moments like this in big and small ways. I also have nothing against Jay-Z but looking at his music catalog I don’t see him as a particularly innovative or progressive artist. I enjoy listening to some Jay Z especially when he hires decent song writers like West and Williams. I am curious when and how did Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA “play a reactionary role” in popular culture? What’s great to me about Born in the USA is that some conservatives attempted to hijack the message of the song and they were met with a resounding rebuff.
Koba said
Jay on occasion consciously throws out some wickedly sharp stuff, shortly after 9/11: “…but crack was anthrax back then, back when, police was Al-Qaeda to Black men”
he very openly expresses his habit of mixed messages: “I dumb down for my audience / And double my dollars / They criticize me for it / Yet they all yell “Holla” / If skills sold / Truth be told / I’d probably be lyrically Talib Kweli Truthfully I wanna rhyme like Common Sense (But i did five Mil) / I ain’t been rhymin like Common since”
Dr. Arms said
where i can buy that mao jacket?? does anyone know who made it?
g. rowan said
I don’t know if folks have seen this. It’s a response to “Run this Town” from an anarchist MC in Canada.