Janelle Monáe, a musician of some note, decided to use her platform at a Grammys afterparty to elbow her way into politics. Unfortunately, her commentary lacked nuance, and it was clear that she used the occasion to aim a freestyle diatribe at singer Nelly for merely performing at President Donald Trump’s inaugural celebration. ‘Shame on you, Nelly!’ She yelled, taking a break from her rendition of ‘Hot in Herre.’
It wasn’t merely Nelly’s performance that seemed to bother Monáe; rather, it was his perceived alignment with Trump. ‘It’s as though he abandoned his position of impartiality when he took to the stage for President Trump,’ she proclaimed. Her accusations continued unabated, ‘I care about women. About Latinx, about Spanish speakers, about the gay community…’ insinuating some sort of betrayal on Nelly’s part.
Monáe’s quick switch from fan to staunch critic stems from a rather binary perspective. She did not reserve judgment for the span of Nelly’s career but instead based it solely on his decision to perform at the inauguration. Her message was vitriolic and explicit – disapproval for Nelly’s choice, a rejection that was broadcasted in her quote, ‘I had thought you were cool, now you’re just the fool.’
The singer’s team did not comment on the matter immediately. Nelly’s controversial performance had occurred already several weeks ago, where he expressed his stance well. He clarified that he would have performed regardless of the president-elect, hence underlining his artistic integrity over political bias.
Nelly confirmed that he maintains respect for the office despite the hyperpartisan nature of politics, illustrating maturity in his perspective of his work’s context. His stance was apolitical, affirming that, ‘Politics ceased for me the day the elections concluded; President Trump won, and he’s the Commander-in-Chief,’ he said. He underlined his patriotic sentiments, regarding it as an honor to perform for the U.S. president, disregarding who holds the role.
Monáe’s reaction seems to be part of a broader issue in our society where artists are no longer judged purely by their talent, but increasingly by their political affiliations. This approach leads to a dangerous polarization, where an artist performing at a president’s inauguration is singled out and condemned, rather than seen as part of the tapestry of a diverse America.
In contrast, Monáe publicly backed Harris during a conversation in November, unequivocally painting herself with the political color, effectively drawing a comparison between Harris’s purported inclusiveness and Trump’s alleged self-centeredness. Despite citing the supposed dichotomy of ‘we’ against ‘me’, it appears that Monáe forgets this principle when it comes to tolerating differing political views.
While Monáe took digs at Nelly, she herself was basking in the limelight at the Grammys, delivering a performance of Michael Jackson’s ‘Don’t Stop Til You Get Enough’ as part of a Quincy Jones tribute. It seems odd that she couldn’t separate her political beliefs from her art, while vocalizing disapproval of another artist who did just that.
The contradiction of Monáe’s actions indeed warrants scrutiny. Here’s an individual who claims to stand for unity, inclusivity, and care for various communities, yet her barrage of words towards Nelly unveils a disconcerting disregard for this claimed unity. Her censure of someone engaging in their profession simply because they don’t align with her political bearings betrays her espoused values. It feels all ‘me’ and no ‘we’; ironically, the same criticism she was quick to level against President Trump.
Unfortunately, Monáe’s actions are representative of a larger issue – the vilification and ostracizing of any individual, artist or not, who does not fall in line with the ‘accepted’ political narrative. Is an artist not entitled to their own beliefs and perspectives, so long as they do not harm or promote hate? Are they not allowed to maintain their professional integrity by separating their work from their political views?
Such actions stifle dialogue and understanding, driving further wedges between communities. For a person who claims to care about unity and respect for different social groups, Monáe’s actions tell a different story. At its core, this situation underscores the rampant intolerance prevalent in today’s society. What initially appears as a minor spat between artists upon closer analysis, reveals itself to be symbolic of a deeper disconnect.
The irony is that by castigating Nelly for his apolitical professionalism, Monáe herself becomes the embodiment of the very fault she erroneously charges Trump with — self-centeredness. She attempts to dictate what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ based on her own personal beliefs, forgetting that true freedom exists in a space where difference of opinion can coexist peacefully, something her performance at the Grammys failed to showcase.
Perhaps instead of focusing squarely on political team-playing and drawing lines in the sand, artists like Monáe should prioritize understanding and unity above all else. Indeed, by rising above partisan politics and fostering genuine respect for varied views, society can start to bridge the division that currently characterizes it.
This incident raises complex questions about the role of artists in politically charged times. Should artists wield their fame as a sword to cleave societal unity, or should they use it as a beacon, highlighting shared experiences and humanity? The onus is on us, the audience, to decide what we endorse, and hopefully, make choices that lead towards a more united society.
While it is unclear whether Monáe’s words will have any lasting impact on her career or on Nelly’s, this episode serves as yet another reminder of the intolerance that pursues anyone daring to deviate from the approved narrative. It challenges us to reflect and understand the broader implications of such unchecked hostility in our collective pursuit of unity and mutual respect.