I am genuinely perplexed at the comments on the Lana del Rey article. Perplexed and surprised. I feel as if I've missed something.
Correct me if I'm wrong, please. But this is a person who has lived a privileged life and now has a video out in which she is portrayed as some kind of chola/gangsta, yes?
And she changed her name to something "exotic" sounding, right... Plus I don't want to sound like this is my issue with her, but she is not at all Latina. That is just a footnote, if anything.
Most of the commenters seemed to take great offense that Hillary was linking this style of gang culture to Latina/o culture as if it were the entire representation of a culture. Which it isn't, but it is a segment of it. A portion. A facet. I don't know.
Anyway, I am surprised at the comments because, to me, Lana doing this is not okay.
I didn't watch her new art video thing, I admit. But the photo on the article made me angry. She doesn't know a damn thing about what it's like to live as someone she is attempting to portray. It is hard.
Another thing I noticed in the comments was that we shouldn't give a fuck about her doing this because fuck gangsters! I find that sentiment incredibly problematic. Gang members aren't grown in test tubes, for Chrissake. There are lots of socioeconomical factors that come into play. People who join gangs aren't inherently monsters. When your life is so fucked up that you join a gang just to feel like you have a family and a support system, you can make the "fuck gangsters!" argument. And it's not uncommon that someone stays in a gang because they know what society thinks of them, anyway. Why try to reform when no one believes you can? You can't, and certainly not with all those gang tats!
My initial reaction to LDR portraying herself this way is, Ohh, damn. Because if she plopped herself down in my old hood and started up with this shit, she would get called out, at best. At best. Lomas don't fuck with posers. Nope.
So, what am I missing?