When Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, made an off-the-cuff comment about President George W. Bush at a gig in London in 2003 she never would’ve imagined it’d become such a defining moment for herself and her band.
A movie called Shut Up & Sing, which cheekily uses an absurd assertion by a member of the anti-Chicks army on its promotional material (”Freedom of speech is fine, as long as you don’t do it in public”), charts the Chicks’s evolution from women with an unsure and regretful voice to females who were prepared to own their views.
While watching this informative and unexpectedly humorous film, it was difficult to understand why members of the most powerful and arguably most democratic nation on earth became so agitated by the following statement by Maines:
Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.
Leaving aside that some people are pathologically parochial and need to loudly condemn other people’s opinions in order to feel confident with their own, Shut Up & Sing indicates that the never-ending criticisms of the Chicks actually politicised the group.
If Maines’s ill-conceived apology to Bush and her claim that the declaration had just been a joke had been accepted by country music radio their 2006 Taking the Long Way mightn’t have contained such songs as “Lubbock or Leave It”:
Dust bowl, Bible belt
Got more churches than trees
Raise me, praise me, couldn’t save me
Couldn’t keep me on my knees
Oh, boy, rave on down loop 289
That’ll be the day you see me back
In this fool’s paradise
Temptation’s strong
(Salvation’s gone)
I’m on my way
To hell’s half acre
How will I ever
How will I ever
Get to heaven now
Throwing stones from the top of your rock
Thinking no one can see
The secrets you hide behind
Your southern hospitality
On the strip the kids get lit
So they can have a real good time
Come Sunday they can just take their pick
From the crucifix skyline
The track is a tirade against religious hypocrisy and stands in contrast to the sweetness of the earlier effort “Travelin’ Soldier”, which gently details the sad life and death of a soldier serving in Vietnam.
It might’ve been the case that if the CD had been more obviously country it would’ve appealed to traditional country music fans more.
Nevertheless, discussion about the Chicks’s falling CD sales and problems selling concert tickets is probably the least interesting part of the film.
After all, if sales are any indication of the merit of performers you’d have to argue that Britney Spears is a worthier artist than Nina Simone.
Unsurprisingly, criticism of the Chicks went from the ridiculous to the nonsensical (for example, equating support for the Chicks with support for communism) to the downright sexist.
Not many women would be shocked to learn that utterances such as “Dixie Sluts”, “Dixie Twits” and “callow foolish woman who deserves to be slapped around” were bandied about by some opponents.
The rather amusing dispute between the Chicks and “conservative democrat” country singer Toby Keith recalls the old disagreement between Neil Young and Lynyrd Skynyrd, except that “Sweet Home Alabama” can be interpreted in different ways whereas there’s no alternative readings to Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)”.
Whether you agree or disagree with the Dixie Chicks or are fan or not of their music (I am), Shut Up & Sing is a smart and funny reminder that adversity can be the inspiration for finding true strength.
Four out of five stars and one big “Yee haw”.
I didnt know that Maines took it back. I wish she hadn’t. I understand why she did. I love the Chicks purely on the basis of what they said. I listen to Pink’s current hit “Dear Mr President” with mixed feelings, wondering where she was, where everyone else was, when the Chicks were getting those death threats outlined in “Not ready to make nice”:
“And how in the world
Can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Saying that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over.”
Mostly I love that America’s country music sweethearts struck the blow that cut through Bush’s smokescreen. Of course, nobody thanked them. They had to endure all sorts of national and international vivisections before they got grammys for it.
Difficult to understand why much of the citizenry didn’t take to this?
Darlene, sounds like you are confessing to having a tin ear for popular opinion!
For a breaking in experience, (on your way up to getting in touch with more widespread public opinion) would you visit Roma & announce that Artie Beetson is a pansy?
I think this post is pointing to an interesting phenomenon. Namely that these spontaneous utterances on the eve of the invasion of Iraq resulted in the transformation of three attractive blonde singers who used to sing lightweight love songs into a politicised recording group that now offered penetrating social critiques of their nation.
It was not popular opinion in America to slam the war back then. The Dixie Chicks did this at a time, when it would seem, every other mainstream artist had forgotten how to protest. The chicks put the protest back in music where it belonged. Not bad for three American dreams. It is interesting to remember how much of the moral highground belonged to America in the years following Sept 11. Which makes what they said all the more important.
And the response to the Chicks was mysoginist in the extreme. They were designated as sluts and twits, as callow and foolish. From sweethearts to stupid whores. What does this reveal about how women are monitored, censored and ordered in a patriarchal culture SATP? Especially when they challenge the order of things? Especially when they let slip they actually have a brain and a conscience while the leader of their nation has neither?
Why were they suprised at the reaction? One of their members voiced a strong opinion an a polarising subject, the conduct of their head of state during a time of war.
Surely, given the topic, timing and venue used to air her opinions its a little cute to claim they were victmised?
It would be a bit like claiming raction to the song “strange fruit” caught Billie Holiday by suprise.
If you voice a strong opinion, regaurdless of wether it is wrong or right, expect strong statements back from your opponents. If some of your supporters turn against you because they were unaware you held those views, them more fool them, or tough titties, depending on where your sympathies lie.
Another exaple may be the beatles after they went psychedellic, cost a lot of fans and won some others.
SATP -are you saying that the people of Roma are ignorant, violent and/or intolerant? For shame.
Hey mole, would you care to elaborate? The only references I can find to Lady Day’s recording of Strange Fruit use terms like “instant success”. That’s hardly the same as the sh*t hurled at the Dixie Chicks.
The financial damage to the Dixie Chicks as a result of that one stupid comment is a message not missed by other artists.
However, the Chicks have the right to free speech, AND the rest of their nation has a right to think they are stupid cows.
The Chicks are embarrassed the President is from Texas? Surprise surprise surprise, it turns out lots of americans are embarrassed that the dixie chicks are americans.
The american people have a right to not listen to the Dixie Chicks, and have a right to demand that radio stations take them off the air.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Amphibious, I am saying that the good citizens of Roma are proud of one of their native sons. Stick your shame where the sun doesn’t shine. Roma is not ashamed of him.
Yes, you may exercise your right to go to Roma and say he is a sook, and the Roma lads may exercise their right to cart you outside and teach you some manners.
“the nation has a right to think they are stupid cows.”
Thanks for responding to my point on mysoginy and patriarchy SATP. I see the rope was sufficient.
Just proves what some people will do for a buck.
“when it would seem, every other mainstream artist had forgotten how to protest.”
They’d forgotten how a long time before Iraq II.
Thankfully, the Dixie’s accidentally remembered how and sure struck a nerve, as did anyone with half a brain who could see the impending disaster and expressed their opinion at the time. Documenting their experience is a neat little story which can remind us of how batshit crazy these venomous warmongering clowns were (and some still are).
Zoot.
She was a black woman singing about whites lynching negros in the Southern States of the US.
Read the powerful lyrics ,
“Strange Fruit”
by Lewis Allen
Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
Pastoral scene of the gallant South,
The bulging eyes and twisted mouth,
The scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.
Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.
I would have called that a great deal more couragous, meaningful and controversial than the Dixie Chicks throwaway soundbite.
My point being Billies song would have had a great polarising effect then as well, the Dixies took a gamble and saw just how fickle fame and fans can be.
Zoot
You are right it is hard to find a link to the problems she had recording strange fruit. Im not a jazz man myself so have just done a few googles and came up with this link
http://www.teachervision.fen.com/civil-rights/lesson-plan/4839.html
Its an education plan which includes this passage
“At the time Billie Holiday was ready to record “Strange Fruit” her record company thought the song was too controversial to release. It was eventually put out by the Commodore label. It was an immediate success and to this day it remains Holiday’s most famous song.”
Risky? Extremely
Effective? very
Sorry to go O/T like this but I thought Zoots question needed at least a reasonable shot at an answer. Im sure any decent Jazz aficionado will be able to provide a wealth of detail.
SATP said -
Their popularity soared as a result. 1 minute on Google could have saved you from embarrassment. The concert immediately following the contreversy was sold out, and the 15,000 people who were there cheered them.
They only took a hit from the rednecks, but captured the imagination of a vast majority of the population, who in case you haven’t been paying attention to GWB 30% approval rating, agree completely with Maines’ original statement.
controversy!
Wow, that’s a pretty lame point then.
I just wanted to boycott the DCs because they were crap. Their only hit was an especially pointless cover of Hotel California, which only conjured up nightmares of earnest christian teenies singing The Rose at some CYF.
I’m more of an Alison Kraus, Gillian Welch kind of guy myself.
On a related note, I saw Steve Earle at the POW one night many years ago. His audience, perhaps untypically for him, were middle-class, middle-aged males with a blues guitar fetish. He launched into a rant about Bush part-way through his set and after exhausting himself he was met with crickets instead of “yeah!”s and whistles, which is what he obviously expected. He shut up and played from that point on.
If you can shoe-horn your dumb views on politics into a good song, fabulous. Just remember what your day job is.
Anti-DC comment #1
Anti-DC comment #2
Can’t you two sort this disagreement out between yourselves, in private?
SATP’s unequal struggle with legal principles continues. Tell the folks again about how judges don’t make law, SATP. It always gets a laugh.
FYI SATP, that would be called assault. There is no right to commit assault.
Their only hit was an especially pointless cover of Hotel California
They had (pre-controversy) more than a dozen top ten hits, numerous numbers ones, and have never recorded Hotel California. They did some shows with the Eagles so maybe they did it live but its not on any album and was certainly not “a hit.”
“Wow, that’s a pretty lame point then.”
And your point being? The way in which these women were censored by their detractors would be of interest to any sane person looking back on what happens to females who step out of line. Their detractors went to that lexicon of sexist and mysoginist designations to make their displeasure known, a place from which SATP also drew to post his riveting comment. Seems to me that “stupid cows” lines up nicely with Dixie sluts, twits, callow, foolish - the point being that these women were judged deficiently in a moral sense which also neatly defined them as sexual objects (sluts) or intellectually (twits, foolish, callow and yes! stupid cows) The term “cow” for a woman also points to their deficient body doesnt it? And what does all this have to do with what the Chicks did? And thats the point.
The thing is kinda interesting, but mainly in its peripherals; the central issue is numbingly simple. The D.C.’s made a political statement in public, which it was their right to do.* Then, others also exercised the same right, and made statements of reply. Excluding illegal stuff like overt threats, that’s about the end of it. Welcome to political life, I guess. The fact that many of their critics made rude and boorish remarks is of pretty much no significance; on this very site, the US President is routinely compared to a monkey, a mentally disabled person, and other niceties, and calls are regularly issued for him to be imprisoned and sent to the Hague to be hanged.** The rednecks were on the whole about as polite to the D.C.’s as y’all are to Jack Strocchi, so if decorum is the issue, then I’m very confused.
* - actually, it’s an interesting question what exactly their “right to free speech” really was in London in 2003. Had they made various other sorts of remarks in public that I can think of, they would have been arrested (!!) on the spot for, erm, “racism” and “xenophobia,” and lynched in absentia by the hilariously self-styled “anti-racist” mobs, their records burned and boycotted etc., and many at this site would have applauded. I guess some talking pigs are more equal than others when it comes to speech.
** - Perhaps one day someone can explain to me without laughing, what’s so special about The Hague for granting the imprimatur of righteousness for the privilege of hangin’ folks. What exactly have the proprietors of The Hague ever actually done, to support their claim to hold the skeleton keys to universal justice?
As I said, it’s the peripherals here that I find interesting. But first I have to go put on a pot of coffee, and then I’ll be back to explain what I mean.
Katz clearly gets life experience vicariously, rather than first hand (seems to be of the belief that bleating “but, but, but… that is assault” will get someone off being thumped for bad manners, particularly in Artie Beetson territory)
Casey clearly ain’t the brightest. Opposition to the Dixie Chicks is political (or musical). Casey interprets this opposition as actually being because they are female…..Bwahahahaha.
The Dixie Chicks’ financial position IMPROVED as a result of that statement? Yeah Right,…. had that been the case there would have been no apology, lame though it was.
Most of their tours are now abroad. Wonder if their picture is on public urinals alongside that of Jane Fonda?
Shorter SATP: “I don’t understand the difference between cause and effect. But I won’t ask Artie Beetson, ‘cos he might beat me up. I really love Artie Beetson.”
Steve, how tedious, thats really misinterpreting what I was saying, however, I like this:
“Casey clearly ain’t the brightest”
But why dont you try and argue to the point instead of disparaging my intellect? ….now hang on, that was my original point wasn’t it?
Amanda: Oops - my bad. I was thinking of their (apparently) forgettable version of Fleetwood Mac’s Landslide. I’ll concede they may have had more hits (particularly in the US), but the only one I ever heard on high rotation was this one. Maybe I only heard their crap songs.
Their financial situation improved globally. Their revenue from their traditional country music base declined, and as they identified with the country music scene, the apology was made to that segment of their fan base. They also wanted to continue living without hassle in Texas, where all their family ties were, so an apology was made.
Here is the apology, somewhat qualified by her concerns:
“As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers’ lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud
American.”
Which I read as:
1. Respect is a good thing for the office of President. Im sorry about that thing I said but:
2. Wake up, the world despises our lunacy
3. Our children’s lives are at stake here
4. I love America, I too, am doing whats right for America.
Apart from uncritical respect for the office of President (which she took back anyway) its still pretty spot on, given how it panned out and the sorts of concerns Americans have today.
I think Casey’s point is that criticism of a female’s opinion by a male is always misogyny & patriarchy in action. There can be no other reason.
But that might be just her misandry and matriarchy acting up.
The experience of the dixie chicks as newly politicised artists also reveals how a hostile media can conspire against you when they do not agree with your politics. It was more than just angry fans that stopped their airplay, it was also the media consolidation, as detailed in this interview, which took them by surprise.
The privilege wasn’t granted by The Hague International Court of Justice, the power was granted to The Hague International Court of Justice. (What causes the difficulty some folks have with the apparently simple matter of cause and effect?)
The ICJ was established by the United Nations. The “proprietors” are the United Nations. Several powerful countries play a prominent role in the United Nations. The US took Iran to the ICJ in 1980.
I saw the film and recommend it as documenting a complex response by the band to its predicament. Their initial uncertainty about where they found themselves, their open concern for record and concert sales, but ultimately their resolve to stick to their principles were, for me, convincing. The play of personalities within the band was also honest and clearly unrehearsed.
Not having previously been a DC fan, I also thought they sang like angels, but resisted the undeniable impulse to wander from the cinema to the nearby multinational books and music chain store.
Oh dear. So much for that concept then.
“The ICJ was established by the United Nations. The “proprietorsâ€? are the United Nations.”
Well, there’s always that [STARTS GIGGLING AGAIN, BITES TONGUE]. Thanks, Katz, for the relevant info. Also, I am in awe at your ability to say it without laughing. Your powers of self-control must be extraordinary.
Also, thanks, casey, for posting the text of the apology. It’s interesting in its own right, but it also alters a bit what I had thought to write next.
Perhaps I’ll get back to saying more about this if the conversation continues energetically. And if not, and people just move on to something else, then no harm done.
Hee hee. Crossed posts with you there, Craig Mc.
Glad to see that j_p_z enjoys international justice jokes.
I got another one fur yuz.
Guantanamo Bay.
“I got another one fur yuz. Guantanamo Bay.”
Shit, why don’t I ever get my hands on the razor-sharp stuff like this anymore?
I gotta fire my damn writers. And maybe my agent, too.
Noone has mentioned that 80% of the dixie chicks fans are Republican voters, so it should have seemed obvious to them that by saying they were ashamed of Bush, by extension it means they were ashamed of their fans who support Bush.
That is the real issue. They insulted their fans, it didnt have much to do with Bush himself, or free speech. The fans felt she was saying she was ashamed of their fans and their beliefs.
I mean, to not know who the core of you fan base is and be totally oblivious to how they think seems pretty daft.
Is there nothing Australian to write about?
The first step in stopping hegemony is creating and writing about local things.
“Noone has mentioned that 80% of the dixie chicks fans are Republican voters”
Er, unsurprising as it sounds like a totally unquantifiable claim. Care to lay a little evidence down for that one SL?
I’m a long-time fan, and have especially enjoyed the way that the MSM notion that the DCs income has been hurt by this experience. As a wise person suggested upthread, a few moment googlin’ will reveal their empire is undiminished. In fact, it’s in darned good order.
My concern is a little more for their music than their politickin’.
Ouch, my tin ear is ringing.
“I saw the film and recommend it as documenting a complex response by the band to its predicament. Their initial uncertainty about where they found themselves, their open concern for record and concert sales, but ultimately their resolve to stick to their principles were, for me, convincing. The play of personalities within the band was also honest and clearly unrehearsed.”
I agree with this very much. Good point.
As for only writing about Australian issues, well, an issue is an issue. I hope I’m not parochial.
It could have been worse for the Chicks, they could shown total & complete lack of knowledge of their fan base and said something even more commercially stupid, such as, “We are embarrassed that Ross Perot comes from Texas”.
Tee hee. Ross Perot? Gosh, that seems like such a long time ago.
You could write a country song about Ross.
Its not merely a case of saying things your fan base would disagree with though. Merle Haggard goes around these days using “Bush” and “Hitler” in the same sentence but he’s still the country outlaw hero. Of course he doesn’t get mainstream country radio airplay or have mainstream hits anyway but he’s one of biggest legends still going round. I haven’t heard a murmur of complaint about him. So there’s definately an element of it not being what you say, but who you are that drove the DC hysteria. (and of course public opinion has swung against the govt since 2003)
The film suggests that public opinion has swung the Chicks way.
As I said, I didn’t find the issue of airplay particularly compelling. Most of the singers I listen to don’t get any.
On Gretchen Wilson’s last CD, Merle and the populist princess of song do a great song about being politically incorrect. It’s probably satire, but….
Part of the reaction, I think, had to have stemmed from the fact that they made their remarks to, and in front of, a bunch of foreigners (and even worse — non-Texans!). “Please, dear: not in front of the goyim.” Nobody in any culture appreciates having tales told out of school, even if they’re truthful ones. Part of it, too, stems from their appearing from their comments to sympathize with, and stand in solidarity with, a manifestly anti-American wave. (And this is different from simple harsh criticism of America, which is not the same thing as ‘anti-Americanism’; one is reasonable and to be expected, and can be judged according to its accuracy, the other is emotional and often sort of hysterical.) They also took a non-analytical, a priori morally superior tack: “we’re on the ‘good’ side” — and how, pray tell, do you know that, without giving your reasons? It’s interesting what wasn’t said: “we’re against this war for reasons A, B, and C, which can be evaluated.” Instead, they adopted the tone of mystical moral superiority to the “evil” side. And finally, by saying they were “embarrassed” Bush was from Texas, they presumed to “speak” for the “real” Texas. I’m not sure they were speaking for many people outside of Austin and Round Rock, though. Plenty of Texans from all parts did and do vehemently disagree with Bush’s conduct, but I doubt they view him as an alien space creature, unformed by their soil. The D.C.’s attitudes towards their relatives back home (as a commenter above referred to) indicate that they had to know it was a disingenuous thing to say.
That being said, I found the text of the apology statement quite proper: acknowledging the nature of the gaffe without backing away from the substance of their position, which was, after all, quite defensible in substance if not in style. Still, it being showbiz and all, it’s not surprising that people held them to the first statement, and not the qualification. And if she said she meant it as a ‘joke,’ well, I’m sure that didn’t help matters much.
I found it odd that Darlene and others would be puzzled that people would take these matters seriously in time of war. Darlene wrote, “it was difficult to understand why members of the most powerful and arguably most democratic nation on earth became so agitated by the… statement”
But it’s precisely because it’s a democratic nation that people became agitated. It’s because words matter. Statements and positions and intentions matter. If they didn’t or don’t, then democracy is just theatre, and we may as well be governed by a shogunate (bakufu, a very illustrative word). It’s the very respect for free speech as something substantial and which makes a difference, which led people to become as angry as they did. I’m surprised this is even a question, in a country as democratic as, well, Australia.
“But it’s precisely because it’s a democratic nation that people became agitated. It’s because words matter. Statements and positions and intentions matter. If they didn’t or don’t, then democracy is just theatre, and we may as well be governed by a shogunate (bakufu, a very illustrative word). It’s the very respect for free speech as something substantial and which makes a difference, which led people to become as angry as they did. I’m surprised this is even a question, in a country as democratic as, well, Australia.”
Fair point, but I think most of the outrage was manufactured. At least, the film suggests it was a beat-up. The shock commentators (e.g. those chatty chaps on Fox) had a whale of time with it.
It was an off-the-cuff comment at a rock concert, so I assume the Chicks weren’t thinking about such issues as the fact that they were talking to non-Texans.
Gee j_p_z, I thought you were still cowering in terror after Katz used the “GB” words. It’s almost like they had no effect at all.
I’ve seen the movie and I recommend it for a variety of reasons.
The original comment was “off the cuff”. Maines hadn’t thought through her position at all. If no one had called her on it, she’d still be singing C&W ditties acceptable to Southern white folk.
But the reaction came from the Bush supporters. Foxtel started it, but the mass of the DC market fell in behind it. They were sincerely angry and outraged by Maines’ first comment. and they were further provoked by her refusal to back down.
Maines’ journey of political discovery, as portrayed in the movie, was a short one. She hardly added to her stock of knowledge about the circumstances of the Iraq war. Her response to it continued to be emotional, though admittedly more focussed.
Maines never challenged her detractors to explain their support for the Iraq misadventure. “My country, right or wrong” was as sophisticated as that exchange ever got.
So the movie was about a contest of competing emotionalisms.
Only as the Iraq fiasco unravelled did some detractors return to the fold and could Maines say “see I told you so.”
Democracy enables many different discourses to co-exist and to compete non-violently. This is a good thing.
But decisions based on emotionalism, even in a robust democracy, tend to be dangerous and counter-productive.
However, the movie tended only to privilege one manifestation of emotionalism over another.
The movie never explained why Maines’ gut feeling about Iraq was superior to that of her detractors, and as such the movie was an unconscious insight into the perils of popular politics in the US today.
Darlene
While I adore the Dixiechicks, equally when they make statements like this
they should expect no free-passes from the people of Texas. They are pop-singers for chrissakes; not philosopher-kings. It is like when we are blessed with a homily by Madonna, Sting, or Trudy Stiler. We are more than entitled to respond, “shut up twit, and sing.”
Darlene, is this right? Are you basing your insight into the USA upon what they saw in a movie?
Darlene: “I think most of the outrage was manufactured. At least, the film suggests it was a beat-up.”
Well, if that’s the truth (and I don’t doubt that it was; didn’t see this movie, but half-remember the original squall in ‘Entertainment Weekly’ if not in ‘Foreign Affairs Quarterly’) then we’re just back to a simple, “That’s showbiz, folks!” and no beeg deel. For the record, though, I don’t think for a second that Maines was under any actual obligation to consider what sort of persons she was talking to, foreign or not; she should have said whatever she wanted, she just shouldn’t have been surprised or annoyed that others would reply to her remarks. (My purpose there was only to explain, not prescribe.)
And that’s kind of the point, really. In a way, it is the Dixie Chicks themselves who have unwittingly misconstrued the idea of ‘free speech’ by using it as an ill-considered stick to beat their opponents with, in the half-baked idea that *they* could say whatever they wanted, but if anyone dared to respond, those persons would be villainous ogres who were unjustly silencing Our Heroines. Eh. You pays yer dime, you takes yer choice.
By the way, are there any feminists out there who are annoyed at the D.C.’s for the way they’ve let themselves be represented in the photo? As delicate half-dressed damsels retreating into the traditional fortress of feminine fragility? Look at their postures in the picture: “How dare you uncouth rednecks photoshop nasty words on our bodies, while we’re busy loungeing in our towels?” Granted it’s only showbiz and sex sells, but still. If they have any serious points to make, this sets them back a piece, I’d say.
Katz: “decisions based on emotionalism, even in a robust democracy, tend to be dangerous and counter-productive.”
You got that one right, and Jemmy Madison had it straight even before you. I recall on another recent thread you were parsing the reasons why the US is a constitutional democratic republic, and not an actual literal democracy. The two of you should have a drink together some time. Me, I’m back to my moonlighting gig as a [SINISTER PIPE-ORGAN STING] …Presidential Elector!
(DIABOLICAL “THE SHADOW KNOWS”-STYLE LAUGHTER…)
“it is the Dixie Chicks themselves who have unwittingly misconstrued the idea of ‘free speech’ by using it as an ill-considered stick to beat their opponents with..”
woah Nelly!
Their opponents? As recording artists, their opponents are pretty well a) record labels, and b) mass merchant retailers. These represent the two groups who will take maximum advantage of the artist - any artist in fact.
Whom are you suggesting the DCs are beatin’ with a stick? Who are these shadowy “opponents?”
via — I wasn’t talking about the life of a professional musician, I was only talking about the life of a citizen with regard to political life and political speech.
If I say, “The Great Pumpkin for President!”, then my ‘opponents’ means everyone who disagrees with me.
And if my sister Lucy then says, “Shut up, you idiot!” I can’t cry ‘censorship!’ unless she’s accompanied by federal troops and a court order. If ’shut up, you idiot!’ is just her opinion and her reply, then it’s not a free speech issue no matter how stupid Lucy sounds, it’s just a political argument between one citizen and another. And if I go around bawling about how she’s censoring me, then I’m falsely using the concept of ‘free speech’ to sort of ‘beat her with a stick,’ and my argument isn’t very serious.
The great Nat Hentoff used to put it very succinctly: The correct response to provocative speech is… more speech.
Perhaps “opponents” is the wrong word, as they only became so after the fact.
The Dixie Chicks, while quite happy to have used “free speech” themselves, should not have been shocked or surprised when that use of free speech brought free (and quite frank) speech in response.
They misconstrued the meaning. Free speech is free speech. It is not “Dixie Chick approved” or “Dixie Chick sympathetic”, and there is certainly no requirement for it to be “respectful of Dixie Chicks”. It is plain old “free speech”.
They should have known that.
I doubt they were surprised.
And at no stage have I been aware of them not taking reponsibility for their comments. They are tough, and intelligent people. Natalie’s dad is Texan music royalty, tough as nails, twice as talented.
They’ve engaged in democracy at a very public level. They’ve no doubt had to put up with a bucketload of knuckle-dragging obscenity over the process, but they’re still standing, and are mighty successful to boot.
There’s a hell of a lot to like about them.
But as I said before, I’m hoping the music can find its soul again, cause at their best, they’re a very fine band.
Ver good analysis, Katz.
No, John, nobody deserves a free pass (not even you), but they didn’t deserve to be vilified with a pack of sexist twaddle either.
“Darlene, is this right? Are you basing your insight into the USA upon what they saw in a movie?”
No Steve, I’m basing on the new show Californication. No, just kidding. No, not the USA, but the response to the Natalie’s words. Different things.
“By the way, are there any feminists out there who are annoyed at the D.C.’s for the way they’ve let themselves be represented in the photo? As delicate half-dressed damsels retreating into the traditional fortress of feminine fragility? Look at their postures in the picture: “How dare you uncouth rednecks photoshop nasty words on our bodies, while we’re busy loungeing in our towels?â€? Granted it’s only showbiz and sex sells, but still. If they have any serious points to make, this sets them back a piece, I’d say.”
It’s a bit icky. It was a female photographer. I suppose it’s the old they’ve been branded like cattle thing. Yes, the Chicks are big on freedom of speech, but less so when it comes from their opponents. I suppose we all have to learn that freedom of speech is a two way thing.
Eek, as much I love The Police and Sting’s music, Sting and his missus are a bit blah.
i want to preface this by saying that i know almost nothing about the dixie chicks music and lyrics.
Im sick of seeing this pop up around the place. Did Dylan teach us nothing? Did… hell I could put a hundred names in that gap. Politics and Pop are not musically exclusively…and if they seem that way its a circumstantial condition which reflects pretty badly on the pop (as in popular, not as in catchy and pithy) music of our age.
Which is not to say that Team America wasnt funny.