Editorial: Macklemore song furthers necessary conversation

Macklemore has left behind thrift stores and returned to the picket line.

On Friday, the Seattle-based rapper released “White Privilege II,” the latest single off his forthcoming album. In the song, Macklemore, whose real name is Ben Haggerty, grapples with his place as a white artist in the hip-hop industry and attempts to define the responsibilities that come with his fame. During the nearly nine-minute track, he finds few answers, but that doesn’t make the conversation any less worth having.

Regardless of how you feel about Macklemore as a musician, the fact is that he popularizes a necessary conversation. White artists hugely benefit from white privilege. Few admit that truth.

Macklemore possess a distinct platform: He is a commercially successful white man in an industry dominated by black performers. Critics have accused Macklemore of cultural appropriation, especially after he beat Kendrick Lamar’s critically acclaimed “Good Kid, M.A.A.D City” for the Best Rap Album Grammy Award in 2014. He became an example of the disproportionate acceptance that the industry gives  to white performers.

Macklemore didn’t originate the critique of white appropriation — black artists did — but it is up to his audience to make sure his work helps change it.

The opening verse of “White Privilege II” explores the rapper’s experience protesting Michael Brown’s killing, and later in the song, Macklemore criticizes fellow white musicians who refuse to discuss social injustices facing minorities. These are issues that someone only hoping to profit from a culture would be uninterested in pursuing. More importantly, they are issues that most white artists seem uninterested in pursuing, regardless of intent.

Black hip-hop artists, such as Kendrick Lamar and J. Cole spread empowering messages, among black youth and tackling social issues that face their communities. It would be wrong for Macklemore to claim a comparable level of credibility, but it is important that outsiders to a community participate as an ally in the discussion.

Rather than seizing the microphone for himself and hijacking the movement, Macklemore understands his role as a potential bridge for new allies. He is aware of his lens, where he speaks from and opens his fans up to dialogue about the issues they’re confronting.

Musically, “White Privilege II” may be melodramatic at parts and annoying at others, but more time has been spent covering it than any other song in a while. The attention “White Privilege II” brings to privilege in this country is invaluable, and its message is one that his listeners and peers should use as an opportunity to do more.

That means more singing, more protesting and — most importantly — more talking. These are problems that will not go away unless those who are privileged actively point them out.

Listeners can decide whether they like “White Privilege II” or not. But wealthy, white artists can no longer pretend they are not benefiting from the system. We should at least hold them accountable for not talking about that fact. Not all music is made with politics baked into it, but we must support the ones that at least attempt to push the dialogue by paying attention to their message..

As prominent Black Lives Matter activist Deray McKesson tweeted in support on Saturday, “Macklemore’s song is not above critique, he knows this. It should be critically engaged. All art should be critically engaged.”

Macklemore deserves support  for actively courting that engagement as many white artists stay silent.

White privilege is real, and if a new rap song is enough to convince more people of that, it’s worth a spin.

Hopefully, we won’t need a part three.