Ugly, Ugly Talkback #28 -- Da Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:51:56 05/02/03 Fri
Author: Ratbat
Subject:

Ugly, Ugly Talkback #28

Ugly Ugly Talkback
Volume 2, No 28
Ain't Just Whistlin' You-Know-What

Don't let it be said that I'm any kind of major Dixie Chicks fan. Sure, what I've heard of their work I haven't minded too much, but they're unlikely to gain any place of pride amongst the Madnesses and Save Ferrises of my record collection. But we just had to sit up and take notice at the aftermath of one of their concerts.

For those who haven't been keeping up with the trials and tribulations of the USA's fragile sense of personal security, here's the story. At a performance in London in March, lead singer Natalie Maines let loose the statement that she was ashamed that President George Bush jr was a Texan. Crowd laughs and cheers, concert goes on.

Next thing we know, the Dixie Chicks' work is being pulled from radio stations and record stores all across the USA. And why not? They had, after all, committed an unpatriotic act. They didn't deserve airplay or sales after this heinous act of treason. What's more, they did it in a foreign land.

What arse. What bollocks.

And, what on Earth are these people thinking?

These words are hardly incitement to riot. Ms Maines merely expressed that she was ashamed of the President (because, it seems, she didn't think much of the war); she didn't invite anyone to harm him or give details of his movements and weaknesses. What's more, she was on another continent. The Chicks' detractors make a big deal of this, saying that makes it all the worse. Why? What detrimental effect will these flag-burning syllables have in London that they wouldn't have back home? It's not like a bunch of British concert-goer are going to be able to storm the White House, vote Junior out of office or even really have much effect at all. Anyway, they'll understand. Great Britain has made a career out of saying bad things about their leaders. Just look at the Thatcherite era. In many ways, it makes some of the entities behind the anti-DC movement a lot worse. A lot of these people will need to relate what the group did to get their point across, creating loads more people who heard about Natalie's remarks over in Blighty. So much for not letting the bad words get around.

The Free Speech(tm) argument gets more than a bit knotted, we have to say. The Dixie Chicks' remarks against the war and things of that nature easily fall under the heading of 'stuff you should be able to say if you're practicing Free Speech'. Which, of course, brings the paradox that people are biting back that the Chicks shouldn't say that out of gratitude for the people fighting and dying for their lives and rights...one of which is the right to freedom of speech. But then, Freedom of Speech can include radio stations playing or not playing whatever songs they want. There's definitely that air of 'well, if they can say what they want, then so can I'.

(It becomes stickier with record stores. By not selling their CDs, these shops are also taking away their customers' ability to choose whether or not they listen to the Dixie Chicks. The shops may well have a 'right' to do it, but does that really mean that they should?)

It's not just a few radio stations not playing them, either. (Not as if we couldn't spare the air-time for a few new artists anyway.) The band has been forced to beef up their security because of threats and protests. Many people who make a profession out of taking the fun out of everything (no doubt last seen telling parents that watching Buffy will send their kids to Hell) have issued long statements ('statements'...all right, we'll just be nice and call them 'statements', shall we?) criticizing this fairly successful modern country band for the evil they've created and the imminent downfall of western civilisation. (Or should that be country-and-western civilisation? HA!) People are not only insisting that other people join in their boycotts and protests whether they feel for it or not, but are holding mass burnings of Dixie Chicks paraphernalia. Burnings! Physical threats! All because she said she didn't like the war? What a bitch!

Imagine if that happened in Australia every time someone picked on John Howard. There wouldn't be any entertainers left in business. Probably no petrol left 'cos of all those fires, too. Bugger, another price hike. Veritable nationwide anarchy if everyone tried to get physical over such issues. Of course, airplay would only increase for a banned band (oo-er), because Triple J would do it anyway out of a spirit of solidarity and a desire to make trouble.

Talk about an overreaction, viewers. Artists accused and convicted of actual crimes have met with less fuss. Difference is, apparently, that it's 'inappropriate' to express any political opinions at an entertainment venue. No, I don't know where they got that one from, either. Nor do we buy the admonishment that she shouldn't have expressed an anti-war sentiment in a time of (near-)war. No, that sounds like the most appopriate time. Do these people practice safe sex by putting a condom on afterwards?

Patriotism in the USA is getting to an all-time craziness ('freedom fries', for Glenda's sake!) It doesn't show a lot for a country's sense of personal security that they'll go to war with a country that hasn't done anything to them in a while, and only after they've made a pretty good show of demonstrating a lack of easily-accessible weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't say a whole lot more that that sense can be so easily threatened by a few singers mouthing off a few thousand miles away.

Additional: You know something even funnier? A lot of these disgruntlons are making their point by buying all the Dixie Chicks stuff in shops that'll still sell it, then graphically burning it. Buying it. Yep, bet that spike in sales is really wounding the Chicks. Oh, sorry, the poor dears actually have so little money they can't afford clothes (see next bit).

Additional 2: The Chicks' own response to this response is interesting. Maines since admitted that she was speaking out of frustration, but nonetheless doesn't regret saying what she did. The band (or more likely their management, but I don't know) later issued an apology in which Maines said she was a bit rude but re-emphasised her statements about the war. (She certainly doesn't bang on about foreign lands or inappropriate forums, mind.) Then all three of them publicly reinforced their point: they're proud Americans who don't like the war and think people in their country have overracted to what they said. They did this by turning up naked on a magazine. An anti-war sentiment that goes on to result in public nudity? No problem here.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Born in the which? -- Leila, 10:22:15 05/06/03 Tue
Dixie Chicks: fucking fat slags? -- cZ, 06:49:55 06/28/03 Sat