Quantcast

Is Lorde's 'Royals,' the top song on the Billboard Hot 100, racist?

Blogger says song unfairly focuses on consumption in genre dominated by U.S. Blacks

CNN News Wire | 10/10/2013, midnight
Lorde, the stage name of Ella Yelich-O'Connor

An international war of words has broken out over a New Zealand pop star's chart-topping single, after an American blogger labeled the track racist.

"Royals," the debut single by Lorde, the stage name of Ella Yelich-O'Connor, currently sits above hits from Katy Perry and Miley Cyrus at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, making the 16-year-old the youngest artist to top the U.S. chart in 26 years.

The singer — who sings about rejecting the trappings of consumerism in "Royals" and has admonished fellow pop star Selena Gomez for being insufficiently feminist — has won plaudits from critics as a refreshing presence in the charts. But not everyone is a fan.

In a post on the prominent feminist blog feministing.com, writer Veronica Bayetti Flores took issue with the song's lyrics, in which Yelich-O'Connor sings that "every song" is about gold teeth and Maybach luxury cars — both fixtures of hip-hop music videos — before concluding "we don't care, we're driving Cadillacs in our dreams."

"While I love a good critique of wealth accumulation and inequity, this song is not one; in fact, it is deeply racist," wrote Bayetti Flores. "Because we all know who she's thinking when we're talking gold teeth, Cristal (champagne) and Maybachs. So why s~~~ on Black folks? Why s~~~ on rappers?"

The writer attacked critics who "have been so captivated by 'Royals' call-out of consumption that they didn't bother to take the time to think critically about the racial implications of the lyrics."

She concluded her post with the observation that the singer "apparently calls herself a feminist." "Let's just hope her feminism gets a lot less racist as she develops as an artist," she wrote.

The post attracted a massive online backlash from Lorde's fans and compatriots as well as other writers, with many claiming that Bayetti Flores, by interpreting the song through the prism of American race relations, was guilty of the kind of cultural arrogance she was attributing to the singer.

"I realize not everything in this world is an instrument of oppression," wrote New Zealand journalist Lynda Brendish. "And not everything in this world should be viewed through the lens of Americans, particularly when it comes to race and cultures of other countries. To insist otherwise is ignorant at best and imperialistic at worst."

The track was the songwriter's response to the images of unattainable luxury often conveyed through a U.S.-dominated pop culture, Brendish wrote.

"The theme of the song is the dissonance between that life... and the one she lives in New Zealand, but it is not at all about race."

While some of the trappings of conspicuous consumption cited in the song were associated with rappers, it also name-checked others associated with other wealthy, high-living stereotypes. "Jet planes, islands, tigers on a gold leash? I'm thinking Richard Branson and maybe Russian oligarchs there," wrote Brendish. "Blood stains and ball gowns? Celeb socialites... Trashin' the hotel room? Rock stars."

Vice.com writer Dave Schilling said Bayetti Flores' reading of the song "couldn't be more simplistic" and asked: "Why should anyone be surprised that the proliferation of pop songs about conspicuous consumption would get tiresome eventually?"