Ah, but you didn't make the generalization...
(Let me sketch my counter-argument anyway: one of the most long-term effects of 400 years of oppression and deepest of deep forms of structural racism in a capitalist society is lack of capital. Capital accumulates and is handed down across generations. If one particular group of people hasn't been able to begin accumulating capital until a mere 50 years ago, the smartest and most revolutionary thing they can do is set about getting hold of it, stat. And then wave it in the face of the oppressor. Asking them to do otherwise--to somehow step outside the prevailing conditions that cause day-to-day suffering and embrace some alternative, unspecified system which exists nowhere close to hand--is incredibly short-sighted, and really only possible from a privileged subject position.)
And I forgot this
<i>but Hendrix, the Doors, and Stones were representative of a generation's anti-war, anti-authoritarian attitudes. and the only thing 50 is representative of is greed.</i>
Hendrix and the Stones were pretty ambiguous, apolitical figures. Sure, Hendrix did Machine Gun--which really isn't anything more than a soundtrack to war anyway--but he also served in the Army (or the Air Force, I forget which). The Stones didn't stand for much of anything, at least politically.
The Doors, maybe really were antiwar, but Jimbo was kind of a fool anyway.
Anyway, the larger, more important point is that the idea that <i>any</i> musician being played by troops is somehow complicit in war is completely ridiculous.
I'd agree that they were all anti-authoritarian, though. I'd also say that 50 Cent is anti-authoritarian. But being anti-authoritarian is easy and vague.
And I'd say that, more than greed, 50 stands for hustle, street smarts, and being a survivor. You could argue those are some positive qualities associated with "capitalism" (whatever the fuck that means anyway), if you wanted to be provocative, too.
