Dionndra Robinson takes a close look at rap and hip-hop lyrics in her essay, demonstrating

how some of today’s artists portray women negatively in popular music. Robinson’s essay
combines analysis of primary texts (song lyrics) with arguments supported by research from
scholarly journals to suggest that some of these lyrics may contribute to a poor sense of self-
worth, especially among black women. She also points out the work of several artists whose
work may be regarded as more positive and empowering, offering a thoughtful contrast to the
others, and a more complex picture of this musical genre.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Dionndra Robinson

Professor Cynthia Chanin

English 1010

6 May 2016

Lyrical Destruction

It was 1979 when these words hit the air waves: “I said a hip, hop, the hippie, the hippie/To

the hip hip-hop, and you don't stop/ The rock it to the bang-bang, boogie say "up jump"/ The

boogie to the rhythm of the boogie, the beat/ Now, what you hear is not a test/ I'm rappin' to

the beat/ And me, the groove, and my friends are gonna try to move your feet.” These lyrics

sparked the hip-hop era, “a street art form that was largely free of violence or sexual

exploitation” (Katel 2007). According to Katel “hip-hop is a cultural movement originally

comprised of four elements: MCing (rapping), DJing, graffiti art and breaking (break

dancing).” Hip-hop was initially used as empowerment for poverty-stricken black

communities. Since this time, hip-hop has evolved from, “hard-driving dance numbers into sex

and violence filled “gangsta rap” (Katel 2007). Lyrically, hip- hop affects the way Black

women are viewed and view themselves.

There was a time when women were adored and looked at as queens. Rapper Lil Boosie

has a song, “Honor Roll,” which talks about his high grade list of women. Sounds positive?

  49  
Well, it’s anything but that. The hook of this song states, “Check out my honor roll. /Grade A

b*****s Grade A Grade A b*****s./Check out my honor roll./ Grade A b*****s./ Put your

hands up, if you a Grade A b***h./” Are your hands up? No, they’re not. As a woman you

want to believe that you are “Grade A” material, but certainly not a female dog. Dr. Johnetta B.

Cole, president of Bennett College for Women, believes hip-hop is more disrespectful of

women than any other music genre. This is due to the misogynistic nature of the lyrics. These

lyrics are prime examples of the type of images women have in this genre.

As hip-hop has strayed away from its origins, it has become a multi-billion dollar

industry. Its success is primarily due to the popularity of strip clubs, “many recent hits have

revolved entirely around the premise of women as sex workers” (Hunter 2011). Rapper Akon

has a song “I Wanna F*** You”, that states, “I see you winding and grinding up on that pole./I

know you see me lookin' at you when you already know. /I wanna f*** you, you already

know/I wanna f*** you, you already know, girl.” These types of lyrics give most listeners the

illusion that all women are strippers and are only good for having sex. The same can be said

about rapper Nelly’s “Tip Drill” song. This song basically says, no matter how unattractive a

woman is, as long as she has a vagina, a man is willing to have sex. These types of lyrics also

impact how some women view themselves. Dr. Cole had this to say about how black women

view themselves:

What value can there be in descriptions of Black girls and women as “bitches,”

“ho’s,” “skeezers,” “freaks,” “gold diggers,” “chickenheads” and “pigeons”? What

could possibly be the value to our communities to have rap music videos functioning

as backdrops, props and objects of lust for rap artists who sometimes behave as

predators? In the culture at large, including popular culture, White subhuman,

  50  
 promiscuous, predatory and hypersexual, this has been the burden of Black women

since slavery, and hip-hop… is complicit with these stereotypical and damaging

depictions of Black girls and women. (94)

She is absolutely correct. This nature of hip-hop has also impacted how female rappers view

themselves. For example, rapper Trina’s song, “Da Baddest B****,” explains in great detail all

the sexual favors she’s willing to do for money. She constantly refers to herself as a “bitch”

and refers to other women as “ho’s.” These types of lyrics have led Black women to degrade

themselves. All too often, Black women go out dressed the part of strippers. They are baring

their breasts and butts, which plays right into the stereotype that hip-hop lyrics portray. There

are some female rappers with positive messages. Early female rapper, Queen Latifah, focused

on uplifting Black women and all women. Her song, “Ladies First,” emphasizes all the positive

things in women and reminds men that we should be treated as ladies. It also stresses that

women were put on earth to be more than sex toys for men.

Hip-hop has truly evolved over its 30 year history. It started with messages of black

empowerment. This is evident in early hip-hop songs, such as, Run D.M.C.’s “Proud to Be

Black” and Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power.” Today’s hip-hop is based solely on what will

sell and get Black women to shake their behinds. It seems as though, no matter what the words

say, as long as the beat can make you dance, women are fine with a song. As a result, the

generation of upcoming Black women don’t have much hope. With all of today’s technology

and social media, it is very easy to find a video of a Black woman “twerking” in booty shorts

for the whole world to see. Hip-hop lyrics have made that “acceptable” in the eyes of many

Black women. They have also led many Black women to believe dressing half naked is the

only way to gain the attention of the opposite sex. In an industry full of misogyny, it’s hard for

  51  
a young Black woman to listen to good hip-hop lyrics, lyrics that don’t entice them to view

themselves as strippers, and dress the part when in public.

  52  
 Works Cited  

Akon. “I Wanna F*** You.” Konvicted. Konvict Muzik. 2006

Cole, Johnetta B. "Sex, Violence, Disrespect: What Hip-Hop Has Done To Black Women."

Ebony Mar. 2007: 90-95. ProQuest Research Library. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.  

Hunter, Margaret. "Shake It, Baby, Shake It: Consumption and the New Gender Relation in

Hip-Hop." Sociological Perspectives 54.1 (2011): 15-36. ProQuest Research Library.

Web. 21 Apr. 2015.  

Katel, Peter. "Debating Hip-Hop." CQ Researcher 15 June 2007: 530-58. CQ Researcher

Online. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

Lil Boosie. “Honor Roll.” Life After Death Row. CD. Bad Azz Syndicate. 2014.

Nelly. “Tip Drill.” Da Derrty Versions. CD. Universal Records. 2003.

Queen Latifah. “Ladies First.” All Hail the Queen. CD. Tommy Boy Records. 1989.

Sugar Hill Gang. “Rappers Delight.” Sugar Hill Gang. CD. Sugar Hill Records.1979.

Trina. “Da Baddest B****.” Da Baddest B****. CD. Atlantic/ Slip-N-Slide Records. 2000.

  53  
   54  
 Section 3:
Advanced Researched
Argument and Essays from
Other Disciplines

  55  
 PRIZE WINNER

First Place Advanced Researched Argument winner Samuel Pinzur examines a critical
paradox in a short story by American author Jack London. Through a close reading of the
original text, coupled with insights afforded by scholarly research, Pinzur carefully analyzes
how London’s “The Law of Life” reconciles the conflicting themes of life and death. The essay
is an excellent example of how a student writer’s original critical analysis can enter into a
conversation with the work of noted scholars in a field.

____________________________________________________________________________

Samuel Pinzur
Professor Deborah Moore, B.S., M.A.
English 2120
21 April 2015

A Reason for Living and Dying:

Conflicting Themes in Jack London’s “The Law of Life”

At first glance, Jack London's "The Law of Life" is an entertaining, albeit somewhat

depressing account of an Eskimo tribe leaving behind to die an old man who was formerly the

chief, Koskoosh. The story consists primarily of a dramatic account of a wolf pack hunting

down an old moose, witnessed by the old man when he was just a boy, as well as the blood-

curdling death of the old man, who was beset by these same ravenous terrors of the tundra. The

tale is fast paced and exciting, but upon more careful examination, two broader, deeper themes

come to life beneath the adventure and suspense. London postulates that the forces of nature

impose one, and only one purpose on each man and woman, and that purpose is to take part in

perpetuating the human race by reproducing. On the other hand, London claims that these same

forces of nature drive each and every person to the same inevitable end: death. London subtly,

yet masterfully weaves these contradictory themes into a tale of a man and his ongoing

encounter with nature. This struggle with the forces and laws of nature is a direct extension of

  56  
Charles Darwin’s theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest as recognized by

Lawrence I. Berkove in his essay “Jack London’s ‘Second Thoughts.’” Berkove asserts that “If

there was a constant concern in London’s mind, it was respect for Darwinism. But although

London respected Darwinism, he hardly celebrated it. London saw it as a law that linked

human beings to animals and ultimately controlled and restricted their destiny” (62). This

respect for the principles of Darwinism led London to his conclusions regarding man and his

destiny as determined by nature. In “The Law of Life,” Jack London simultaneously develops

two conflicting themes, then masterfully harmonizes them into a resounding conclusion on the

power of nature over mankind.

London articulates the theme of man's sole purpose with three different approaches.

First, he observes that nature causes each person to reproduce, but neglects all other personal

interests of man. Second, he demonstrates that every man and woman is soon forgotten by the

succeeding generations despite owing their existence to these men and women. Third, he

reasons insightfully that nature determines every woman's worth almost entirely by her ability

to bear children.

First, London declares that nature completely disregards the hopes and dreams of man,

thus making it apparent that reproduction is man's only purpose. As Koskoosh is left behind, he

begins to contemplate life and death and the laws of nature by which these are governed. He

ultimately concludes that "Nature was not kindly to the flesh. She had no concern for that

concrete thing called the individual" (1044). The reality of each individual is lost on nature.

They have no names. They have no faces. Nature's "interest lay in the species, the race" (1044).

This is indeed, a sweeping declaration that drastically diminishes the individuality of man.

  57  
Other than their ability to reproduce, the individual, his wants, needs, hopes, and dreams, are of

no concern to the forces of nature.

In addition, London observes that men, once they have reproduced, are eventually

forgotten by the very children they have begotten. Nature requires not that man be

remembered, but merely requires that he reproduce. Koskoosh reasons further, “The tribe of

Koskoosh was very old. The old men he had known when a boy, had known old men before

them. Therefore it was true that the tribe lived, that it stood for the obedience of all its

members, way down into the forgotten past, whose very resting places were unremembered”

(1044). The only lasting proof, the sole memorial of these ancients is the current existence of

the tribe. Furthermore, these men "did not count; they were episodes. They had passed away

like clouds from a summer sky. He also was an episode, and would pass away. Nature did not

care. To life she set one task....To perpetuate..." (1044). This is an even clearer enunciation of

man's insignificance, which is effectively equivocated to the fleeing nature of an August cloud.

Men, once they have had children and grandchildren, are ultimately forgotten and consequently

erased from the memory and consciousness of their descendants.

Finally, London argues powerfully that the worth of women is determined almost

entirely by their ability to reproduce. He paints the scenario of a young girl becoming more

desirable and attractive as her body matures until one young man can contain his desire for her

no longer. They then marry and have children. “Ever she grew fairer and yet fairer to look

upon, till some hunter, able no longer to withhold himself, took her to his lodge…to become the

mother of his children” (1044). This is indeed a poetic but, nonetheless, accurate description of

youth and its desires. In stark contrast to the women’s attractiveness before childbearing is the

picture that London so poignantly paints after she has reproduced, the picture of a woman

  58  
worn, broken, and undesirable to all excepting the children she has borne. “And with the

coming of her offspring, her looks left her. Her limbs dragged and shuffled, her eyes dimmed

and bleared, and only the little children found joy against the withered cheek of the old squaw

next to the fire. Her task was done” (1044). Nature has such arranged it that a woman is

desirable only in terms of her ability to create and then nurture new life. London powerfully

argues through this observation that women’s sole purpose in existence is reproduction and

continuation of the race as a whole.

Nevertheless, as London is so carefully crafting this theme of man and his sole purpose

of perpetuating life, he is also simultaneously developing the decidedly contradictory theme of

every man’s inevitable end: death, as forced upon him by nature. London fashions three distinct

lines of reasoning in support of this unavoidable end at the hands of nature. First, he contrasts

the vigor of youth to the feebleness of old age, that ever-present foe who overtakes even the

stoutest of and hardiest of Earth’s sons. Second, London compellingly illustrates that this same

pattern is abundantly evident in the animal kingdom also. Third, he argues that since the very

basic necessities of man’s subsistence, food and water, are available to him merely by the

whim of nature, nature must both keep man alive and put him to death.

London first points to every man and every woman’s destiny of death by comparing the

vibrancy and vitality of youth with the weakened senses and physical capabilities of old age.

Koskoosh is contrasted strikingly with his young granddaughter in order to accomplish this

comparison. London writes:

Old Koskoosh listened greedily. Though his sight had long since faded…Ah! That was

Sit-cum-to-ha, shrilly anathematizing the dogs as she cuffed and beat them into the

harnesses. Sit-cum-to-ha was his daughter’s daughter, but she was too busy to waste a

  59  
 thought upon her broken grandfather, sitting alone there in the snow, forlorn and

helpless. Life called her, and the duties of life, not death. And he was very close to

death now. (1043)

The one unable to see or to care for himself and so left to ponder with what faculties remained

his impending doom, Koskoosh is the picture of the end which nature imposes upon all her

sons. The other, Sit-cum-to-ha, active and exuberant in the flush of youth and the activities of

life, has yet to be touched by nature’s impartial hand. But her time will come; decline knows no

partiality. The onset of death, whether sudden and in the prime of life, or slowly and

ploddingly, will come as the forces of nature continually bear their offspring away.

London further symbolizes this inevitable onset of death by taking note of the same

pattern in nature of the ultimate triumph of death over life among even the plants and animals.

Leaves blossom and bloom in the brilliant colors of life, only to wither and fade as winter

wields its deadly sickle of cold. The most majestic of beasts grow weary and weak and worn,

ultimately to fall prey to those who will but briefly usurp their reign atop the animal kingdom

before being overtaken and discarded themselves. Koskoosh’s vivid childhood memory of the

moose and his valiant fight against and surrender to the wolves is London’s prime example of

this. Koskoosh recalls:

The trail was red now, and the clean stride of the great beast had grown short and

slovenly. Then they heard the first signs of battle—not the full-throated chorus of the

chase, but the short, snappy bark which spoke of close quarters and teeth to

flesh.…Together they shoved aside the under branches of a young spruce and peered

forth. It was the end they saw. (1046)

  60  
Even the mighty and magnificent moose, a grand specimen of nature indeed, finds himself

helpless against the forces of nature bringing about his impending death.

Finally, London closes his case for the control of nature over man’s final fate by ingeniously

illuminating every man and every woman’s complete dependence on nature for survival. Basic

to human subsistence are food, water, and temperatures moderate enough to nurture life;

without these three necessities, mankind cannot and will not survive. Each of these vital

factors, furthermore, is made available only through workings of the natural world. London

relates another of Koskoosh’s memories in order to reveal this reality:

Koskoosh placed another stick on the fire and harked back deeper into the past. There

was the time of the Great Famine, when the old men crouched empty-bellied to the

fire…He had lost his mother in that famine. In the summer the salmon run had failed,

and the tribe looked forward to the winter and the coming of the caribou. Then the

winter came, but with it there were no caribou. Never had the like been known, not

even in the lives of the old men. But the caribou did not come, and it was the seventh

year, and the rabbits had not been replenished…And through the long darkness the

children wailed and died, and the women, and the old men; and not one in ten of the

tribe lived to meet the sun when it came back in the spring. (1045)

Simply put, humankind will live as long as nature provides food, and will die upon nature’s

removal thereof. In addition to this example, Koskoosh’s dependence on the small pile of sticks

left him by his granddaughter, whose heat upon burning would provide him with a barrier

against the cold of the frozen tundra, is yet another instance displaying man’s reliance on

supplies of nature to survive the forces of nature. As Koskoosh contemplates, “At last the

measure of his life was a handful of fagots.…When the last stick had surrendered up its heat,

  61  
the frost would begin to gather up its strength.…His head would fall forward upon his knees,

and he would rest…. All men must die” (1044). The length of every man’s life then, and its end,

are determined by nature. Surely nature’s control over man and his fate is revealed in man’s

utter dependence on the whims of nature for the most basic necessities of life.

London has now clearly established the theme of man’s sole purpose, to reproduce, and

the theme of his unavoidable end, death. These two themes, however, appear to pose a

paradox, a conflict. Nature dictates man’s sole and unequivocal purpose, to perpetuate life, and

also determines man’s ultimate and unequivocal destiny, death. Nature nourishes life with one

hand, yet snuffs it out with the other. London is well aware of this contradiction, as he makes

clear through two examples. First is Koskoosh’s account of the death of his childhood friend

and a skillful hunter, Zing-ha, who freezes to death in the icy grip of nature’s winter (1045).

Surely the premature death of a hunter in his prime, who could provide food in abundance to

the tribe, is counter-productive to the sustaining of life. Second is the case of Koo-tee, a small

child who is weak and sickly (10430. Regarding Koot-tee Koskoosh surmises, “It would die

soon, perhaps, and they would burn a hole through the frozen tundra and pile rocks above to

keep the wolverines away” (1043). This conflict between life and death is drawn out more

sharply in the likely death of a sickly child long before he reaches his prime and is able to

reproduce.

This question then remains: How can mankind carry out their duty when they have no

control over their destiny? London’s answer is simple and succinct. Death wins. Nature seeks

to perpetuate life, but when push comes to shove, death triumphs, and nature cares not.

Xiaofen Zhang reveals tellingly in his article “On the Influence of Naturalism on American

Literature” that “Often, a naturalist author will lead the reader to believe that a character’s fate

  62  
has been pre-determined, usually by heredity and environmental factors, that the destiny of

humanity is misery in life and oblivion in death and that he/she can do nothing about it”

(Zhang, par. 2.1). This is most certainly an accurate assessment of London’s viewpoint as

espoused in “The Law of Life.” London openly establishes this viewpoint through Koskoosh’s

musings on both the child Koo-tee’s predicament and the child’s worth, or lack thereof, to the

tribe. Koskoosh reasons, “A few years at best, and as many an empty belly as a full one. And in

the end, Death waited, ever-hungry and hungriest of them all” (1043). This indeed is somber

statement revealing the chilling reality of imminent death. The forces of nature hold the final

judgment and determine man’s end, whether premature, as in the case of Zing-ha, or timely, as

in Koskoosh’s death. Man is ultimately powerless against nature, and is subject to nature’s

every whim, whether pleasant or painful.

There is, nevertheless, a silver lining to this dark and foreboding realization. In his

article “Loving Life While Accepting Death,” Vivekanand Palavali reveals his interpretation of

and response to “The Law of Life” asserting that “[Koskoosh] accepts death as the ‘law of life’

and that his time has come. That short but dramatic story made me accept death as an

inescapable reality….It is hard to go on with daily life thinking about the reality that, in the end,

it won’t matter. But is does matter, right now….Instead I think about life—the beauty, pleasure,

wonder, and magnificence of it” (39). Here is offered an alternative to the despair that is wont

to set in upon contemplation of mankind’s inevitable end and powerlessness against nature.

London subtly suggests this alternative in old Koskoosh’s willing acceptance of his imminent

death, which is made increasingly evident throughout the story. Koskoosh ultimately believes

that life, whether long or short, and then death is the way of all things. Therefore, while no

man, woman or child can control his destiny, every person can control his or her outlook on

  63  
life while it lasts, choosing to appreciate the happiness life affords rather than to resent the

hopelessness death brings.

In conclusion, London seamlessly crafts two apparently contradictory themes within

the same story. He postulates that nature has but one purpose for man: perpetuation of life, yet,

in opposition to this first theme, he clearly claims that nature has one and only one unavoidable

end in store for every man: death. London creates this apparent dichotomy, however, merely to

establish his final conclusion all the more powerfully, a conclusion that he weaves very subtly

beneath the more apparent themes of life and death. London harmonizes these opposing themes

by concluding that nature rules, both in life and in death. Nature has the first say and the last.

Man has but to accept his destiny at the hands of this awful and beautiful force. This is the law

of life.

  64