BRATTLEBORO — Several weeks ago, Newsweek writer Leah McGrath Goodman addressed the song “Royals,” written by the singer Lorde. The author applauded the song for its attention to - and, more importantly, its taunting of - consumerism, exposing its shallow nature.
I believe the author missed one of the main contradictions in the song: Lorde's division of consumerism on the lines of race.
For those unfamiliar with the pop hit, in her chorus Lorde declares that “Gold teeth, Grey Goose and trippin' in the bathroom/bloodstains, ball gowns, trashin' the hotel room/We don't care, We're driving Cadillacs in our dreams/But everybody's like Cristal, Maybachs, diamonds on your timepiece/Jet planes, islands, tigers on a gold leash,/We don't care, We're not caught up in your love affair.”
Within that song, Lorde has her disagreement with consumerism and general overconsumption. She is certainly talking about consumption, but seemingly only the consumption of hip-hop culture. I mean, that is whom she is talking about. What else do you think of when you hear or see the words “gold teeth” or “Cristal”?
Personally, I think of Nelly's song “Grillz” and R. Kelly's song “Freakin' Weekend.” Both of these musicians also represent American black hip-hop artists in the post-20th-century world.
Lorde is openly pointing out the poor consumption choices of hip-hop artists in her song, and whether it was intentional or not, her point is clear. And to use the words of Verónica Bayetti Flores, a blogger on feministing.com, for Lorde to bring a discussion about hip-hop to the table implies that, “as a genre dominated by black folks, [any] critique of this genre is inherently raced.”
Therefore, Lorde's raced discussion of specifically hip-hop consumerism can be broken down into the discussion of how people of color buy things and how white people buy things. In our culture, this difference mostly takes the form of it being acceptable for only wealthy white people to buy whatever they want, no matter how ridiculous.
There is a reason the song doesn't go, “Country clubs, golfing tournaments, ski vacations, Whole Foods, and nannies.” First off, it doesn't rhyme. But secondly (and more seriously), those are some of the things that what white people who have a lot of money buy, and Lorde wasn't talking about white people and their consumptive habits in this song.
If you are going to write a song talking about conspicuous consumption and be high and mighty about it - as Lorde sings, she isn't “caught up in the love affair” - you might as well blame people of the race that collectively owns the most money to do the most consuming in the first place. That would be white people.
But instead, Lorde sings a more repetitive anthem.
In Lorde's song, we have another narrative of how people of color create more of the problems, spend most of the money, and make more ridiculous choices, even though in reality they don't. And in Lorde's song, white people's participation in the perpetuation of consuming is ignored almost completely.
* * *
Yes, let us applaud Lorde for her creativity in claiming that conspicuous consumption is a terrible thing, and - as Goodman would want - let us claim Lorde's song as a new anthem against the current practices of consumption in the face of high unemployment statistics.
But more importantly, please recognize her song for what it truly is.
To quote Flores again: “This is racism; not just a casual encounter, or a specific instance of interpersonal prejudice. It is an entire system that requires the consistent reinforcement and dehumanization of people of color to uphold. The ways that the U.S. media is reacting to this song - largely as a brave critique of consumer culture - is part of reinforcing that system.”
So enjoy this song for its great beats, but understand its inherently raced messages - and the reality of those who are most influential in overconsumptive practices.