#StopRewritingHistory

[the-most-humble-blog]

Global Borrowers, Foundational Creators: Hip-Hop Belongs to Foundational Black Americans, Fat Joe

It’s time to have a real conversation. Hip-hop didn’t just spring out of thin air, and it sure didn’t emerge as some global kumbaya project where everyone held hands and equally contributed. Hip-hop is a cultural expression born directly from the experience of Foundational Black Americans (FBAs). Period.

So when Fat Joe flaps his gums, casually suggesting that hip-hop was some kind of cultural potluck with no clear origin, it’s not just wrong—it’s a disrespectful erasure of Black Americans’ legacy. Here’s why Fat Joe, and anyone parroting his nonsense, needs to sit down, open a book, and recognize who built the house he’s living in.

The Birthplace of Hip-Hop: FBA Struggles, Creativity, and Culture

The Bronx in the 1970s was a tough place—economic despair, systemic neglect, and racial discrimination were daily realities. For Foundational Black Americans, whose ancestors endured centuries of slavery, segregation, and systemic racism, hip-hop was born out of resilience and innovation. It was more than music; it was a way to turn pain into art, to reclaim agency in a world that continually tried to silence them.

Graffiti, breakdancing, DJing, and MCing—the four pillars of hip-hop—were deeply rooted in FBA culture and history:

Graffiti: A visual rebellion, a way to carve out a presence in a city that erased Black voices.

Breakdancing: An art form born from Black American jazz dance traditions and martial arts influences, adapted and redefined by FBA youth.

DJing: Techniques like scratching and mixing evolved from traditions of Black American music—jazz, blues, funk, and soul.

MCing: The verbal tradition of storytelling, roasting (the dozens), and call-and-response, all rooted in FBA oral traditions.

While non-FBA individuals like DJ Kool Herc contributed to technical innovations, the cultural fabric and ethos of hip-hop are undeniably FBA. The very foundation Herc built upon—funk records, soul music, Black American slang, and cultural storytelling—was created by FBAs long before a single turntable was scratched.

Why This Matters: Cultural Borrowing Isn’t Creation

Let’s get something straight: being part of something is not the same as starting it. Latinos and other groups contributed to hip-hop’s growth, no doubt. But creating something from scratch? That was FBA ingenuity.

Fat Joe’s comments are part of a larger problem: the global habit of cherry-picking contributions while erasing the origins. It’s the same dynamic we’ve seen with jazz, rock ’n’ roll, and blues—genres Black Americans pioneered, only to see their contributions downplayed or outright stolen. Hip-hop is no different, and we can’t allow that pattern to repeat.

To borrow from a house analogy: Foundational Black Americans laid the bricks, raised the walls, and built the damn roof. Everyone else just moved in.

Fat Joe, Please Take a Seat

Fat Joe’s claim that hip-hop was some global melting pot ignores reality. Hip-hop came from the Bronx, yes—but it came from Black Americans living in the Bronx. It came from their pain, joy, and ingenuity. To suggest otherwise isn’t just ignorant; it’s insulting.

Here’s the thing, Joe: No one’s denying your place in hip-hop as a Puerto Rican artist who contributed to its growth. But contributing is not creating. Acknowledge your role as a participant, not a pioneer. It’s not that hard.

When you try to rewrite history, you’re doing the same thing colonizers did to indigenous cultures—stealing credit while stomping on the people who made it possible. Do better.

FBA Legacy: The Backbone of Global Hip-Hop

Today, hip-hop is a billion-dollar global industry. But let’s not forget who planted the seeds. Every rapper spitting bars in Tokyo, London, or Johannesburg owes their craft to FBA creativity. The slang, the style, the storytelling—it all traces back to Black American communities who turned their struggles into an art form that resonated worldwide.

Let’s give credit where it’s due. Non-FBA communities can and should celebrate their contributions to hip-hop’s evolution. But hip-hop’s origins belong solely to Foundational Black Americans. That’s not up for debate. That’s history.

The Bottom Line: Hip-Hop Is Black American History

Fat Joe, take note: Being loud doesn’t make you right. Hip-hop is not a buffet where everyone gets to claim equal credit. It’s a cultural masterpiece crafted by Foundational Black Americans—a gift to the world, born out of pain, resilience, and relentless creativity.

So let’s set the record straight: Hip-hop isn’t “global” in its origins. It’s FBA. Respect it, acknowledge it, and stop trying to rewrite it.

[marie95disneygirl]

Tangled Series Ruins Everything.

The Tangled series sends a HORRIBLE message about marriage being a "prison," which is the complete opposite of the truth. What even happened to the characters? Flynn’s turned into a dumb sidekick, and Rapunzel? She’s toxic now. She lets everyone insult Flynn without defending him, keeps secrets from him, draws his face on a punching bag, time travels to rewrite his personality, and then rejects his proposal—after she literally would have died for him in the movie. 🙄

And why is everyone ignoring the fact that this story takes place in the 18th century? People—especially princesses—were married off at 16 so they could be together. Marriage wasn’t a choice, it was the only option. No one was living together unmarried back then. Why rewrite history? Why is this now “unrealistic”? Back then, people got married fast because that was reality.

And don’t even try to say this is “canon.” The series was written by someone else than the movie, and it’s NOT the same thing. Disney never intended for Rapunzel to reject Flynn’s proposal—that line at the end of the movie was a JOKE. Tangled Ever After doesn’t look like years later; it’s clear the creators were just trying to fill time. Plus, the Royal Theater still claims they got married quickly after the movie. So much for the series being “canon,” huh?

Tangled fans love to trash older princesses for marrying young and quickly—when it made perfect sense for their time period—but they’re fine with Rapunzel and Flynn being willing to die for each other after THREE DAYS? If the message is “commitment takes time,” then giving up your whole life and freedom for someone should ALSO take time, right? That’s real commitment, not marrying quickly. Huge double standard.

Stop rewriting history and stop disrespecting the original fairy tales. History matters. And marriage was never a prison. Tangled’s series missed that entirely.

[notacutewitch]

#hatenotheritage #stoprewritinghistory #dontignoretheobvious #confederatesweretraitors #stopglorifyingshit #noh8 #remakethesouth

[marie95disneygirl]

The Joke That Wasn't Meant to Be Taken Seriously

Let’s just take a second to talk about the Tangled series and why it ruined Rapunzel’s character, the romance, and—frankly—the entire message Disney was trying to send.

First of all, that line about marriage at the end of Tangled? Yeah, it was meant to be a joke, not some deep statement about how marriage is a trap. It was a joke. If you honestly think that line means “they waited years to get married,” then you clearly missed the tone and context of the movie. Let’s look at Tangled Ever After, made by the same creators, and the flower girls haven’t aged at all. How convenient, right? If it had truly been “years later,” they would’ve been different ages. Disney’s own Royal Theater at Disneyland even says the marriage happened pretty quickly after the events of the movie. So why are people still pretending this wasn’t meant to be a funny line?

But what really gets under my skin is how this series twists everything about Rapunzel and Flynn. In the movie, Rapunzel was literally willing to die for Flynn. She risked everything for him, gave up her entire life, and it was clear from the start how deeply she loved him. She made her choice immediately. Now, suddenly, in the series, Rapunzel’s completely unrecognizable. She’s toxic. She lets people insult Flynn, keeps secrets from him, draws his face on a punching bag, and even travels back in time to rewrite his personality. Why does she reject his proposal? Seriously, what happened to the girl who was ready to give up everything for him?

This is a huge problem because, in the 18th century (when the story is set), people had to marry young to be together—especially women and even more so if you were a princess. Princesses were typically married off at 16! So, the idea that Rapunzel should’ve “waited” is just completely unrealistic. Not to mention, nobody should stay with someone after their proposal is rejected. I get that modern relationships might be more flexible, but in the context of the time this story takes place, marriage was the only way to be socially and physically together. Marriage was not a prison, it was the only option, and that’s exactly why Cinderella, Ariel, and even Aurora got married young. It made sense for their time.

But Tangled re-wrote this whole idea. The series isn’t even canon, and anyone who thinks it is clearly doesn’t understand how much the original film was supposed to stand on its own. The series was written by someone completely different, and it disrespects the core of the story. Disney never intended for Rapunzel to reject Flynn's proposal—that line in the movie was clearly meant as a joke, a playful moment. The idea that she needed to "see the world" before marrying him is just a modern, revisionist take that ignores the historical reality. Women at that time didn’t have the luxury of time—marriage was a necessity for survival, for freedom, for everything.

And here’s the thing: the original Rapunzel accepted her prince’s proposal the first time, and that was completely appropriate for her time. She wasn’t some naive, easily manipulated girl. She was a woman living under strict societal rules where an unmarried couple dating was a scandal, especially with the fear of out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Why are we pretending that wasn’t part of the original story? Why act like a woman’s personal, historical decision was “wrong” just because it doesn’t fit with modern ideals?

We need to stop disrespecting the original Rapunzel and sending such a terrible message that marriage is a prison. The whole idea that the modern feminist narrative has to erase historical context is frustrating. The Tangled series doesn’t just discredit Rapunzel’s original story—it disrespects history. And for what? So we can all pretend marriage was some form of oppression? It wasn’t. It was a necessity, and pretending that it was anything else is historical revisionism at its worst.

Let’s just be real here: the series isn’t canon, it doesn't align with the movie's intent, and it insults the legacy of the Brothers Grimm’s original work. So stop rewriting history, stop disrespecting the original characters, and start understanding the context of the time in which these fairy tales were set. Marriage wasn’t oppression—it was survival. And the next time someone tells you that Rapunzel rejected Flynn’s proposal because she needed to “find herself,” remind them that the royal theater says they didn’t wait long to marry. Get real, people.