Posted on by rjonakait · 2 Comments

I Couldn’t Understand It, and It was Dirty and Un-American

The moderator of the current events discussion group at my residence put out a request for someone to speak about Bad Bunny. I volunteered. The spouse put together a PowerPoint that had images from the Super Bowl halftime show but started with the opening segment (from YouTube) during which the Puerto Rican rapper  emerged from a sugar cane field and walked past scenes of everyday Puerto Rican life. This opening, watched by 128 million people live and many more on YouTube since, brought a smile to the spouse and me. We lived our fifty-four years in Brooklyn in neighborhoods where whites were a minority. Our first NYC neighbors were many Native Americans and Puerto Ricans. We, like Bad Bunny, regularly passed coconut water stands and shaved ice carts. A fixture at our corner bodega was middle-aged men sitting outside on milk crates playing dominoes with Puerto Rican music on the speakers. In those high crime days when we were alert to possible danger, we knew that the players, recognizing us, would come to our assistance if there was ever a problem.

I confess, however, I did not understand what Bad Bunny was singing. That’s not just because he used Spanish. I seldom understand rappers in any language–including English. Nevertheless, I could tell from the visuals and the music that he was not giving us the usual halftime show of the Las Vegas-style entertainment of a performer’s greatest hits. It was instead an ambitious, thematic presentation comprising an homage to Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans, Latin America, love, family, and America. I have watched the show several times, and it is brilliant.

That sugar cane field set the tone for the rest of the thirteen minutes. Sugar is a crucial part of Puerto Rican history. When the United States took possession of Puerto Rico after the 1898 Spanish-American war, the sugar trust was one of the most powerful lobbies in this country. As part of the United States, Puerto Rico was not charged tariffs on its sugar, which allowed these American sugar companies, which everywhere exploited native workers, to expand on and dominate the island.

During the opening segment, Bad Bunny carried out of the sugar cane field an older version of a Puerto Rican flag, which some associate with the Puerto Rican independence movement. He went on to honor traditional love by giving an engagement ring to a man who immediately proposed to his girlfriend. A few moments later they got married at what was a real wedding. Apparently, the couple had asked Bad Bunny to attend their nuptials, and he responded by asking them to be married at the Super Bowl.

He also honored his own family. His mother’s name was on a jersey he wore, and his uncle’s number–when he played the game–was on the football Bad Bunny carried.

He made a personal reference when he gave a Grammy statue to a young boy. Bad Bunny recently won the most important Grammy award, given for Album of the Year, the only time an album in Spanish has won. (Its intriguing English title is “I Should Have Taken More Photos.”)

But he also referred to recent dark Puerto Rican periods when he climbed a utility pole and sang “The Blackout.” Two major hurricanes decimated the island in 2017, and power outages were widespread and lengthy. Major problems with the Puerto Rican grid continue.

Bad Bunny concluded with his only English by saying “God Bless America” and then listed every country in the Americas from Chile to Canada. A banner behind him said love could conquer hate and the football carried the message Together We Are America. (Earlier he addressed the camera—the camera work was superb throughout—and said that he was at the Super Bowl because he had believed in himself and encouraged us to believe in ourselves, too.)

There were some parts that might have seemed lewd to us old folks and other uptight people, especially in the gyrating dancing, but the choreography helped tie all the segments together. There are, however, lewder performances on TV all the time. In fact, while nothing was especially controversial in this halftime show, outrage, maybe some of it unforced, has spewed forth. Of course, our president and others have said that they could not understand him, as if they had wanted (or tried) to. These guys, unlike me, are indicating what I doubt: that on first hearing they understand rap songs in English.

Trump, while admitting that he failed to understand a word of it, reported that Bad Bunny’s halftime performance was “An affront to the greatness of the United States.” Surely a celebration of heterosexual love, marriage, family, and the culture of Puerto Rico, a part of America whose residents are American citizens, cannot be un-American. Instead, Trump (who never forgets a slight) may be remembering that Bad Bunny criticized him for the lack of humanitarian aid to the islands after the 2017 hurricanes. Moreover, Bad Bunny said he would not tour the U.S. last year because of a concern about ICE actions at his concerts. To make matters worse, Bad Bunny has been a strong supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, and a pride flag appeared in the halftime show.

Others have claimed that FCC action is necessary because of the sexually explicit lyrics, and many of Bad Bunny’s songs are, indeed, explicit. In this he is not different from other rappers who brag about their sexual prowess and encounters. (This is why I don’t rap . . . anymore.) But sources and Puerto Rican friends agree that Bad Bunny excised the sexually explicit from his songs or mumbled them so they could not be understood.

Bad Bunny has become a star not just because of sexual lyrics but also because of his musical social commentary that raises deep concerns about the problems of Puerto Rico. His guest artist, Ricky Martin, an openly gay Puerto Rican who had a number one hit at the turn of the century (“Livin’ La Vida Loca”), sang Bunny’s song titled in English “What Happened to Hawaii.” The song is a powerful, beautiful lament that cautions Puerto Rico not to become like the Pacific Island that has lost its Hawaiian culture. Part of the lyrics in English:

What Happened to Hawaii

This was a dream I had

[Verse 1]
She looks beautiful even when things sometimes go wrong.
In her eyes, a smile holds back her tears.
The foam of her shores looks like champagne.
It’s alcohol for her wounds, for dancing away the sadness.
It’s alcohol for her wounds, ’cause there’s so much to heal.
Deep in the green mountains, you can still breathe.
The clouds are closer, with God you can speak.
You hear the jíbaro crying, another one who’s left;
He didn’t want to leave to Orlando, but thе corrupt ones pushed him out.

[Pre-Chorus]
And no one knows for how long

[Chorus]
Thеy want to take my river and my beach too.
They want my neighborhood and my grandma to leave.
No, don’t let go of the flag nor forget the lelolai,
‘Cause I don’t want them to do to you what happened to Hawaii.

[Interlude]
Be careful, Luis, be careful

[Verse 2]
No one here wanted to leave, and those who left dream of returning.
If one day it’s my turn, it’s gonna hurt so much.
Another jíbara fighting, one who wouldn’t give up;
She didn’t want to leave either and on the island she stayed.

[Pre-Chorus]
And no one knows for how long

[Chorus]
They want to take my river and my beach too.
They want my neighborhood and your kids to leave.
No, don’t let go of the flag nor forget the lelolai.
‘Cause I don’t want them to do to you what happened to Hawaii.
No, don’t let go of the flag nor forget the lelolai.
‘Cause I don’t want them to do to you—

[Outro]
Lelolai, lelolai
Oh, lelolai, lelolai

Bad Bunny no doubt recognizes that while 3.2 million people live in Puerto Rico, that population has declined, and that more than 5 million people who were born on the islands, now live in one of the states.

The National Football League has also been criticized for bringing Bad Bunny to the Super Bowl. On the field, football may be a game, but for Roger Goodell, the head of the NFL, professional football is a business, and Bad Bunny was good for business.

The choice recognized the power and popularity of Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, Bad Bunny’s official name. He may be the most important musical artist today. After rising to prominence with his first record in 2016, he was the most streamed artist on Spotify, the music app, in 2020, 2021, and 2022. He was second and third in 2023 and 2024. He returned to number one last year with—wait for it–19.8 billion streams.

He was a good NFL choice because professional football wants to expand into Spanish-speaking countries, play games in Madrid and Rio de Janeiro, and, of course, make Spanish TV rights more valuable.

And the NFL recognizes the increasing importance of Spanish in this country. Forty-one million people in the United States speak Spanish as their first language and another twelve million speak it as their second language, which means one in six in this country are regular Spanish speakers.

The NFL made a sensible business decision with Bad Bunny. Bad Bunny responded with a brilliant show, a show maybe not for most of us old folks. But perhaps we can learn that there is more in life than choral music and American standards from previous generations, and there are younger people who know and appreciate things we do not.

Posted on by rjonakait

Greenland Redux

The last time around, Trump showed a fascination with Greenland. He wanted to buy it. Well, not personally. Once again forgetting pledges on deficits, he wanted our tax dollars to pay for it. To me at least, it was never clear why. Now, as the countdown to his next term continues, he again indicates, without giving reasons, that we should own Greenland. Whether he is serious may depend on what Elon has to say, but Trump’s comments sent me back to a post of mine in 2019 about Greenland. I have reposted it below.

President Trump wants to buy Greenland. My first reaction: I was surprised that he would want to buy white people. But then I did some reading, and I learned that Greenland’s population is 88% Greenlandic Inuit, with 12% Danes and other Europeans. Maybe that eight-to-one ratio explains the acquisition mania.

On the other hand, I never thought that Trump would think desirable a place that does not have forests to decimate and is not dependent on coal or other fossil fuels. In what seems ironic, Greenland is one of the greenest places on the planet. According to one source, seventy percent of its power comes from renewable sources, mostly from hydropower. But perhaps this is an attraction for Trump. He can fulfill his promise to bring back jobs to the West Virginia coal fields by “ordering” the Greenlanders under some national security rationale to use coal. I can see the slogan as Trump supporters wear tee shirts proclaiming, “Make Greenland Sooty (Again).”

I wondered how Greenlanders have reacted to the proposed purchase by a world leader who does not believe in climate change. Greenland is ground zero for global warming. An ice sheet covers four-fifths of the island; it weighs so much that it has depressed the central part of the island making it almost a thousand feet below sea level. The glaciers have been experiencing increased run-offs contributing to the rise of sea levels. Does a lessened ice mass also mean that the land will rise?

Perhaps, however, the Greenlanders favor global warming. It would not be surprising. Greenland’s capital and largest city, with a population of more than 17,000 (Quick! What is it?), Nuuk, averages high temperatures below freezing for more than half the year. I assume, however, that the tourist agencies point out that the temperatures in July regularly reach a relatively balmy fifty degrees Fahrenheit. A few degrees warmer and perhaps the residents will be able to break out bikinis and speedos. During the summer, the sun rises at 3:00 A.M. and sets at midnight, so there is a lot of daylight for any unrestrained outdoor frivolity. Of course, during the winters, the sun is above the horizon for only four hours, but those long nights perhaps call out for other appropriate activities.  

If Trump does buy Greenland, you would think he ought to make at least one visit, even though that is unlikely since he does not own a hotel there and won’t be able to bill the American taxpayers for his stay. But perhaps those long nights appeal to him for all the dark hour tweets he can unleash. I may not have anticipated that Trump would float the purchase idea, but surely no one should have been startled that he showed the usual pique when those nasty Danish threw ice water on the idea. Canceling a scheduled trip to Denmark seems par for his course, but, of course, he does not own a golf course in Denmark and does not apparently have a way to bill us taxpayers and increase his revenues by a Copenhagen visit.

It was expected that conservative pundits would weigh in and maintain that Trump was again showing his genius. Too often the difference between these commentators and a rubber stamp is that the latter leaves an impression, but I was surprised that Trump-is-always-right sycophants have cited climate change—yes, climate change!–as a reason why the U.S. should purchase Greenland. An article on the Fox News website states, “But what makes Greenland particularly valuable to the United States is global warming. The unavoidable receding of Arctic sea ice will open a new sea route in the Arctic that can be used for both commercial and military vessels.” What especially struck me about this contention was the use of the term unavoidable. Global warming is happening, the writer to my surprise wrote, but his position is that it is inevitable. Increasing temperatures can’t be helped, apparently. I guess the writer believes that it is God’s will, so we should just go with it and seize opportunities. If we can keep the warming going and the ice diminishing and the seas rising, new sea routes will open allowing ships to go where they have not gone before. So, stop being so negative about climate change (which Trump says is not happening) and revel in new sea lanes.

What the writer did not make clear, however, is why the new ship routes, if they occur, mean that it is essential that we own Greenland. Aren’t there many sea lanes around the world important to us where we do not own the adjacent land? Why is this different?

This writer also said, as did others who find a way to support Trump after he makes a pronouncement no matter what it is, that Greenland has valuable minerals that should not fall into China’s hands. Why, then, don’t we try to buy the mineral rights? Indeed, those of us who believe in free enterprise and fair trade should expect American corporations to see the opportunity and seek to get all this valuable stuff. These Trump-is-amazing writers don’t explain this apparent failure of American capitalism. Where is their faith in free enterprise without government intervention? Isn’t that the point of cutting governmental regulations, which they support?

One of those in the Trump-is-brilliant camp is Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. He recently published an op-ed piece in the New York Times. (Why is that when conservatives want to be taken as deep thinkers they so often publish in the “failing” Times? Mitch McConnell also placed an op-ed article with the “enemy of the people” the previous week. His piece was one about the importance of filibusters for our constitutional government glossing over that he had removed those all-important filibusters for Supreme Court nominees.) Cotton contended that the Greenlanders should welcome coming under American sovereignty. Denmark now subsidizes Greenland to the tune of at least $650 million dollars annually. America has more money than does the Danish government, so we can do even better for the Greenlanders, Cotton maintained. The Senator surprised me. He wants to commit to a new and expensive welfare program. He opposes entitlement programs for American citizens, but he wants to open the floodgates for those who are now foreigners. Is this the new conservatism? What do Cotton and the others feel about increased federal support for Puerto Rico? Or have I underestimated Trump? Were his remarks merely an opening salvo, and his real goal is to swap Puerto Rico for Greenland? The Art of the Deal may be more subtle than I ever thought.

I wonder, if in stating that America can increase governmental moneys in Greenland, whether Cotton has examined where the Danish subsidies go. Health care in Greenland is paid for by the government, and Danish subsidies support that. Cotton, who adamantly opposes the Affordable Care Act, expects America to expand single-payer medical services in the new possession. And here I thought that Trump supporters believed in America first!

Does Cotton realize that part of the healthcare in Greenland is for abortion on demand? Greenland now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. In fact, abortions have exceeded live births in recent years. (Remember those long nights.) He supports the laws that prevent the federal government from paying anything for abortions in the United States no matter how poor the woman or how the pregnancy—think rape and incest–occurred, but Cotton wants to increase funding for this medical procedure in Greenland. (I am told that when residents of Greenland’s capital Nuuk do want a baby, they say, “Let’s have a little Nuukie.”) And perhaps Cotton should also examine how education is funded in Greenland.

Cotton is a hardliner about our immigration system, concerned that Mexicans and Central Americans are lured here by all the goodies they can get out of our government. Shouldn’t he and other conservatives then be concerned that when we increase the freebies to Greenlanders, illegal immigration will uncontrollably increase there as refugees see Greenland as a new land of welfare opportunity? Perhaps Cotton, who supports Trump’s border wall, is already planning to build a wall around Greenland to stop illegal immigration that he must think will inevitably occur. Perhaps Cotton ought to give at least an estimate as to how much federal money he thinks we will spend over there.

I also wonder if Cotton and the other Trump-is-marvelous crowd have thought about the status of those who would fall under American sovereignty. If we own Greenland, will we provide a path to American citizenship for those who live there, or will they automatically be citizens? Will they have an unfettered right to permanent residence in the United States? If so, how long does one have to be a Greenlander for that right? Puerto Ricans are American citizens and can come and go to the United States whenever they wish. Guam, which we own, is similar. Those born on Guam are American citizens who can move to the rest of America. (For reasons I don’t understand while Guamanians have birthright citizenship, those born in American Samoa do not.) If Greenland is to be treated like Guam, aren’t conservatives concerned that refugees will flock to Greenland and have ice-floe babies who will be American citizens who can freely emigrate to America? I am guessing that before conservatives grapple with such questions, they will have to ascertain whether Greenlanders lean Democratic or Republican. And perhaps even more important: Will there be a path to statehood for Greenland? Just because they have fewer than 60,000 people doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have two Senators and three electoral votes, just as long as they vote Republican.

We have acquired much territory through purchase in our history. As far as I know, we never sought to find out whether the people who already lived on those lands desired a new sovereign. In essence, they were treated like Russian serfs. You buy the land, you buy the people on the land. Should we who proclaim democracy and government of “we the people” continue such a feudal practice? Will there be some sort of plebiscite; will the leaders of Greenland be consulted? (I have no idea who the chief griot of Greenland is, but I am confident neither does our president.)

The Fox News writer points out, however, that we have bought lands before—including the Louisiana purchase, the Gadsden Purchase, Florida, and Alaska, and he concludes that Trump could simply buy Greenland. Hold on–it has never been that simple. We do have a Constitution, and the consent of Congress or the Senate has been necessary for those purchases. We may say that President Jefferson and Secretary of State Monroe made the Louisiana Purchase, but in fact Congress ratified and authorized the funds for it. The Gadsden Purchase and the acquisitions of Florida, Alaska, and other lands came via treaties together with the authorization of the funds from Congress. A treaty, of course, requires not just the consent of the Senate, but consent by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. Do you really think that is going to happen? Or does Trump have another trick up his sleeve that he will maintain justifies him in his mind to take unilateral action and do another end run around our Constitution—that document that conservatives proclaim to love so dearly?