Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/30/90)
Really-From: nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) Personally I don't think that Sinead's latest profound act of idealism is worthy of all this but some of the remarks made here merit comment. First of all I don't think that it's particularly necessary or appropriate to play the national anthem before a concert but if the concert promoter wishes to do so that's his right. Second, if Sinead doesn't want to be associated with our National Anthem she has the right to excercise whatever influence she has to prevent that. But by doing so she is suppressing the ideas of others. But it's "her" show, you say? Wrong. Her show starts when her lights come up. I think the whole idea of preventing someone from saying something you disagree with stinks. Period. If Sinead has objections to the National Anthem let her speak out, let her tell us what her problem is. Some of you seem to think that nationalism is such an evil thing that it should be suppressed. Fine, speak against it, label a few things jingoisms, burn a few flags, say what you want. But don't tell others that they can't say - or sing - whatever they want. The funny thing is that Sinead provided a perfect gimmick for the radio stations to prey on the rising tide of patriotism. > Really-From: Steve Wallis <stevew@mushroom.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk> > I don't know whether Sinead sings any particularly political songs, but > imagine if KT (if she toured again...) sang songs such as _Army_Dreamers_ and > _Breathing_ - KT would certainly also refuse to be associated with an anthem > which would convey opposing sentiments and trivialise her views. First of all I doubt that Kate would characterize those songs as "political". Second I think it's foolish of you to presume that Kate, who professes not to be political, would make any such objection. Third, your contention the U.S. National Anthem conveys sentiments that are opposed to those of _Army Dreamers_ or _Breathing_ reflects a profound ignorance of what that song really means. > If she realised that the hordes would start such a jihad, she would be even > more determined to stick up for her principles. Of course, several DJs are > hardly "hordes" and don't represent the American public (although after > reading this discussion, I'm not so sure...) So Sinead can object to nationalism and that's called principles but if others stand up for their nationalism that's called a "jihad". Do you have any way to support your points beside putting "bad" labels on things you don't like and "good" labels on those you do? > Really-From: greg@Viewlogic.COM (Gregory Larkin) > > This country has a sad history of bigotry against almost every nationality on > Earth, and incidents such as these will continue it. This country also has a proud history of helping almost every other nationality on earth. That history continues in spite of the anti-american bigotry that is so popular in many of those countries. > Really-From: Steve Wallis <stevew@mushroom.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk> > > The chief cause of bigotry is patriotism. The difference between fervent > admiration of your own country and bigotry against others is slight. Hence, > the Star Spangled Banner is a major cause of such bigotry. This is complete and utter rubbish. If there is a chief cause of bigotry it is probably ignorance. I present you as proof, your ignorance of America and Americans is probably the chief cause of your bigotry against them. > Oh, the U.S.A. is still fighting for independence, is it? It seems to me > that other countries are fighting for independence from the U.S. Case in point. > You may know that Midnight Oil strongly support the plight > of the aborigines in Australia, and would equally have supported the plight > of the Indians in the U.S. against the patriotic whites. If they played at > the arena in question, I'm sure they would make the same protest as Sinead. This is a riot, we're being lectured about opression by an (apparent) citizen of the "British Empire". Are you saying that we are required to disavow our just pride in our country because we (and thus it) are not and never have been perfect? Are you so sure that it is not possible to be aware of your country's faults and still object to people from other countries trying suppress your pride in your country? ------------ Folks, please don't insult Kate by seeking approval of your political views in her music. She has always clearly stated that she is not a political person. "Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell att!cbnews!nrc nrc@cbnews.att.com
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/31/90)
Really-From: Steve Wallis <stevew@mushroom.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk> >Really-From: nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) > >> Really-From: Steve Wallis <stevew@mushroom.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk> > >> I don't know whether Sinead sings any particularly political songs, but >> imagine if KT (if she toured again...) sang songs such as _Army_Dreamers_ and >> _Breathing_ - KT would certainly also refuse to be associated with an anthem >> which would convey opposing sentiments and trivialise her views. > >First of all I doubt that Kate would characterize those songs as >"political". I never said Kate would. I do, in the sense that Kate is conveying her views on topics which are generally regarded as political. >Second I think it's foolish of you to presume that Kate, >who professes not to be political, would make any such objection. I admit that I am not 100% sure she would object. But KT does like to be in control of her own work. Also, allowing the anthem to be played is making a political point. >Third, your contention the U.S. National Anthem conveys sentiments >that are opposed to those of _Army Dreamers_ or _Breathing_ reflects a >profound ignorance of what that song really means. As a relatively ignorant love-hound, I believe that these songs express her dislike for war and nuclear weapons. Any eKTsperts can correct me... Whatever the real meaning of the U.S. National Anthem, it certainly conveys a message of patriotism/nationalism; such nationalism (along with other excuses) has been used to justify the U.S.'s various military operations in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and Saudi Arabia, as well as rapid nuclear proliferation. >> If she realised that the hordes would start such a jihad, she would be even >> more determined to stick up for her principles. Of course, several DJs are >> hardly "hordes" and don't represent the American public (although after >> reading this discussion, I'm not so sure...) > >So Sinead can object to nationalism and that's called principles but >if others stand up for their nationalism that's called a "jihad". Do >you have any way to support your points beside putting "bad" labels on >things you don't like and "good" labels on those you do? Actually, it wasn't me who called it a "jihad"; I was replying to another message. However, looking at the dictionary definition, there is nothing "bad" about that label. Of course "jihad" may have bad connotations, just as a national anthem has patriotic connotations... >> Really-From: greg@Viewlogic.COM (Gregory Larkin) >> >> This country has a sad history of bigotry against almost every nationality on >> Earth, and incidents such as these will continue it. > >This country also has a proud history of helping almost every other >nationality on earth. Hmm, the phrase "exploiting almost every other nationality on earth" comes to mind. But this is getting somewhat off the point... >> Really-From: Steve Wallis <stevew@mushroom.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk> >> The chief cause of bigotry is patriotism. The difference between fervent >> admiration of your own country and bigotry against others is slight. Hence, >> the Star Spangled Banner is a major cause of such bigotry. > >This is complete and utter rubbish. If there is a chief cause of >bigotry it is probably ignorance. Ignorance is another major cause. I won't try to order causes. >I present you as proof, your ignorance >of America and Americans is probably the chief cause of your bigotry >against them. I have no bigotry against Americans, I oppose nationalism in every country (and it is a major cause of the world's problems). Opposing the U.S. government is a completely different matter. >> You may know that Midnight Oil strongly support the plight >> of the aborigines in Australia, and would equally have supported the plight >> of the Indians in the U.S. against the patriotic whites. If they played at >> the arena in question, I'm sure they would make the same protest as Sinead. > >This is a riot, we're being lectured about opression by an (apparent) >citizen of the "British Empire". I despise the British Empire, which has caused much poverty and oppression in its former colonies. >Are you saying that we are required >to disavow our just pride in our country because we (and thus it) >are not and never have been perfect? No, but you should not attempt to force your pride on others, whether it be at school, "football" games or concerts. "Indoctrination" is the word that comes to mind. >Are you so sure that it is not >possible to be aware of your country's faults and still object to people >from other countries trying suppress your pride in your country? Sinead (like me) opposes nationalism, pride which often entails bigotry. I fail to see why the owner of an arena should have a right to propagate nationalism, yet artists (whether foreign or not) should not have a right to oppose it. Steve. -- / / / \ / / -------------Steve Wallis------------- \/\ /\ \/ \ / \\/ / | JANET: stevew@uk.ac.man.cs.r5 | / \ \/ \/ \\//\ / | Internet: stevew@r5.cs.man.ac.uk | \/ \/ | UUCP: ..mcvax!ukc!man.cs.r5!stevew |
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/31/90)
Really-From: Jeffrey C. Burka <jburka@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> Really-From: Steve Wallis <stevew@mushroom.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk> >>Third, your contention the U.S. National Anthem conveys sentiments >>that are opposed to those of _Army Dreamers_ or _Breathing_ reflects a >>profound ignorance of what that song really means. > >As a relatively ignorant love-hound, I believe that these songs express her >dislike for war and nuclear weapons. Any eKTsperts can correct me... Not that I'm any sort of expert...just a fanatic <grin>: It depends on how broadly you want to look at the meanings. From a rather specific level, Army Dreamers (possibly my favorite KT song) is rather typical of the sort of poem that came about as a backlash to romanticism--the song is about the utter dispicability of the idea of dying in a war not for what one believes in, but for the romantic notion of dying itself. KaTe says "Like a chicken with a fox/he couldn't win the war with ego." The ego in this is that little indoctrination-created voice in the soldier's head that reiterates that it's a special thing to die for your country. I think KaTe is not saying that you shouldn't be willing to die for what you believe in--she's saying to believe in the right things. Romantic notions of death do not fit into this category. Breathing seems to me just to say "Nuclear war would _not_ be a groovy thing. In fact, it'd be pretty unpleasant." There's nothing particularly political about the song. Whether or not KaTe is political, I'd have to agree that, based on the 'message' of Army Dreamers she might be opposed to the singing of the US (or other) national anthem before a show. It would be difficult to take Army Dreamers seriously if it were preceded by a song that encourages, to some degree, a blind devotion to a country-- I feel that the anthem encourages people to think that it's a special thing to die for one's country--not for the things that make the country special to begin with. (uh oh...who's gonna flame me for all this?!) Jeff -- |Jeffrey C. Burka | "At night they're seen | |jburka@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | Laughing, loving, | |jburka@amber.ucs.indiana.edu | They know the way to be happy" --KaTe |
kaufman@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman) (08/31/90)
In article <9008300843.AA11311@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> Love-Hounds@gaffa.MIT.EDU writes: Really-From: nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) >Second, if Sinead doesn't want to be associated with our National >Anthem she has the right to excercise whatever influence she has to >prevent that. But by doing so she is suppressing the ideas of others. This is crazy. First of all, she did not say that people are not to sing the natoinal anthem, only that she didn't want it sung before her concert. (I know that I am going to get flamed for this but...) This is alot like the argument that says that if I don't support NEA sponsership for some piece of art then I am censoring that art. Second, since you are saying that she should suppress other peoples ideas before her concert, would you have the same opinion if the promoter had wanted to play a few anti-irish songs before the concert? Or maybe the latest Andrew Dice Clay album? If it's not her show until she starts, why not? If you don't think that there is anything wrong with her objecting to these things, then tell me what the difference is. Just because you and I might respect the National anthem, why does she have to? Michael Michael
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/31/90)
Really-From: Brian May <Brian.May@mel.dit.csiro.au>
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU:
> Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu (I also strongly approve)
Go Steve Go. Thing is these guys (the couple who keep flying the flag) will
never get it into their heads, so it'll get even more tedious soon.
....wish I was back in Manchester - especially over the last year (how long I
have been here) for the music. What's Thursday night at the Hacienda like now?
(if you frequent, or know someone that does). Is it still open & has God struck
down Saint JimBob Anderton for all his sins?
enough, homesick already (oh is Picadilly 103 still a good stn?)
brian
'Jingo'Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (09/01/90)
Really-From: ptsfa!pacbell!tjb@ns.PacBell.COM In article <9008310700.AA17831@manta.mel.dit.csiro.au> you write: >Really-From: Brian May <Brian.May@mel.dit.csiro.au> > >Go Steve Go. Thing is these guys (the couple who keep flying the flag) will >never get it into their heads, so it'll get even more tedious soon. Well it seems to me you anti-americans will never get it into your heads that we're not "flying the flag" in the derogatory sense that you mean, but that we're simply sick and tired of being the world's (or at least this group's) whipping post. Why is it okay to hate america and americans (only those americans who hate others of course) but not okay for those americans that you so despise to hate others in the first place? as for exploitation of others, shoot, where do you "brits" think we learned it from? ******************************************************************************** tjb tjb@PacBell.COM Deadhead. Fencer. Geek. pacbell!tjb ******************************************************************************** "in a soldier's stance i aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach fearing not i'd become my enemy in the instant that i preached good and bad--i defined these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow ah but i was so much older then i'm younger than that now" -- Bob Dylan
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (09/01/90)
Really-From: <ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!Ken_-_SaintJohn@uunet.UU.NET>
Mr Caldwell,
I would like too complement you on what I think is perhaps the most
intelligent posting I have read in a very long time. However there is one
point I feel you missed. The young lady who is the subject of much
conversation here is not a citizen of this country, thus she is or was a
guest of this country and it's citizens. As a guest she acted very
rudely... it's about a simple as that...
Ken - SaintJohn@cup.portal.com
Ken... "Sex,the root of all reincarnation" KB