... Him and John Wayne

Did we just go through the anniversary of Elvis' birth or was it his death? I know it's very easy to check, especially since I am at a computer as I type, but by asking I get to emphasize the idea that Elvis' life or death is insignificant to me. See how much I don't care? I won't even check for myself. Though I do know it was one or the other. Last week, everywhere I turned, there was some Elvis related tribute or another which makes as much sense to me as honoring Justin Timberlake.

I am not saying that either of them are without talent. Well, Elvis is now, but he wasn't when he was alive. They are both fine at what they do/did. But isn't hailing Elvis as the king of something we call rock and roll a bit silly? If rock and roll is supposed to be some specific type of ethos or spirit of youth, sexuality, aggression, and passion expressed musically wouldn't Howlin' Wolf, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, or, if it has to be a white guy, Jerry Lee Lewis be more of that for the particular era? Elvis was a good looking guy, with a pleasant voice, who could sing and play other people's music; that's cool, but would the people (I'm thinking of you Jim Ladd) who make such a big deal about Elvis make the same big deal about Justin Timberlake? If they do they're lame, and Justin Timberlake happens to be more talented than Elvis was.

To be clear, this isn't about Elvis qua Elvis. It's about celebrating Elvis and what kind of sense that might make. And to be clear, just in case you ever hear me singing "Rock Your Body," I like Justin Timberlake enough to know, as "I Don't Yet Have a Nom du Web" says, he brought sexy back. I mean really- what's not to like about this guy?


Anyway.

If it is possible to think apart from the accepted notion of Elvis as The King of Rock and Roll for just a moment and see him as he actually stands in relation to the music and the history of which he was a part, we might see that he's really just one in a long line of carefully put together pop products- which is fine as far as that goes. But again, think of Justin Timberlake, and try to imagine people thirty years from now selling themselves as Justin tribute artists.

It is as silly as it seems. There's not much that's King worthy or really anything worth the hype.

So I'm suggesting (vaguely) Elvis is a part of something else. You might not want to buy into Chuck D's script whole hog (though THEY did put Elvis on a stamp), but I wonder if celebrating Elvis is like displaying a Confederate flag. I don't mean you have to hate people of color (as they say) to celebrate Elvis (though it probably helps), only that celebrating Elvis is akin to talk about "The Good Ol' Days," or that Elvis could represent an usurpation or expression of dominance. Now don't start crying yet. You might like Elvis or Justin Timberlake and not be any more racist than your average American (still- that's pretty racist). I'm suggesting that celebrating Elvis as many people have been doing or participating in some Elvis culture has a racist purpose. Maybe it's like using the euphemism "discovered" when discussing the beginning of the conquest of the Western Hemisphere. It's a way to remind people they don't have a legitimate claim to HISTORY. Celebrating Elvis is a way to suppress other voices- and do it with a smile.

Remember, he's not that awesome. He's not that Rock 'n Roll. He was a bit of a joke at times. When he died, he was a lot weird. It's not Elvis per se that is celebrated. I think it's a celebration of dominance and appropriation. I'm not saying it's the same thing as burning a cross- perhaps more insidious though because people who embrace the Elvis mythos might not want to confront their own racism- but racist nonetheless. Maybe it's like a This Is Our Country Chevy commercial, or only thinking of white people when you think of America.

But all is not poop and dead babies. It kind of fits the type for racist symbolism doesn't it? I mean, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny- Elvis held up as the King even though he's kind of clowny, "The Discovery of America" as a term for conquering a place that already had a name and people- many peoples actually, describing "our forefathers" as Pilgrims seeking religious freedom when what they really wanted was to be able to set people who didn't agree with them on fire. That's the good thing about lies, they don't hold up, and that's encouraging- maybe especially these days. Not to say that lies don't have inertia or that people don't cling to lies intently- but they can be held up to the light can't they? That should be worth something, especially to any people who believe in truth.