Re: Oh Say Can You See?

[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 |