No, that'd be fucked-up.coqui_chris wrote:
I'll put it this way:
Lets say I made a website called http://www.SoupKitchen.com. And me and my buddies put on dirty clothes, fake Hep C sores, colored our skin yellow to approximate jaundice, and took pictures of ourselves eating day-old bread, "overripe" fruit, and donated meat. Would this be kitschy and cool, and would it give me street-cred?
But then no one's getting rich off the "soup kitchen lifestyle", near as I can tell.
However, there ARE plenty of rapper$, record companie$, radio programmer$, CD and download sale$-site$, who are ALL marketing "ghetto life" -- and $elling to many non-'hood-dwelling, up-$cale consumer$, I might add.
These "corporate pimp$" are, of course, joined by other "big-bidness" interest$, who are ALSO making large $$ from hip-hop-related music/film/clothing/pop-culture (like, say, from $150-a-pair sneakers), and this global marketing phenomena just happens to include the glorification of the "40-of-malt-likka" as a cool, lifestyle-drinking-statement. People have been exploiting this since well before Bruz and his website came along.
And, as I am old enough to remember, the beer companies have been marketing malt liquor -- to everybody in America -- decades before ghetto/pimping was considered cool and hip by anyone not involved in the game.
Is there a set of rules which govern just WHO is or isn't allowed to exploit the idea of malt liquor (none of which, I believe, is brewed by companies owned by any ghetto residents) as "hip beverage" of the moment? All I see is the rich getting richer and playing by their own rule$.
And when there's big money to be made, there's ALWAY$ a double $tandard (and always "para-site$" like this Bruz buffoon).
That's America, bro.
