Fun Stuff > BAND
Music and Politics
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: bryanthelion on 08 Mar 2008, 21:03 ---I dunno,
If I were performing in a different country, I would have the mentality that I'm a guest at their home. Saying things about Tibet in china is like saying, "That vase looks like shit, and it looks like sewage with those drapes near it." at someone else's home.
--- End quote ---
Not really. It's more like having a word with them about the six dismembered postmen you found in the fridge when you went to get a beer.
Besides, China, the Chinese government and the Chinese people are all different things. Criticising the government's actions does not mean that you criticise the people, particularly in a country like China where they have no control over their government beyond staging a revolution. And speaking personally I'm never offended when foreign bands make a few choice comments about the British government. In fact, I welcome it. It's always nice to get a little solidarity from people around the world.
Hat's question is a good one. Question is, what effect would Bjork refusing to play in China have? Would that serve a purpose? I'm not so sure it would, at least not unless she was willing to set up a boycott on a larger scale. Making remarks about Tibet while in China on the other hand will definitely annoy the Chinese government, which is always a good thing.
Hat:
Yes, if only we had thought of mildly annoying governments that invade and occupy other nations, I suppose we might have solved the worlds problems a lot earlier!
--- Quote from: David_Dovey on 08 Mar 2008, 21:15 ---Because it's not the concert-going peoples' fault that their government are a bunch of atrocious fucks
--- End quote ---
I would like to vehemently debate this point with you on MSN Dovey, since doing it here would basically erupt into full blown politics debates and this thread is going to survive as long as we avoid that.
--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 08 Mar 2008, 21:16 ---Hat's question is a good one. Question is, what effect would Bjork refusing to play in China have?
--- End quote ---
It would make her immune to criticism of hypocrisy, for making money off of a country that she considers to be despicable enough to take a strong political stance on? Not cause a certain amount of stimulation to the Chinese Economy?
a pack of wolves:
I take your point, but I doubt a singer from Iceland has the power to do anything more than slightly annoy any government. Even that's far more than most people could manage. I'd love to be able to say I've ever been anything but a very slight irritant to any of the organisations I oppose, but truth be told I doubt I've even done that. I'm not trying to suggest that Bjork saying a few things about Tibet at a concert is going to do much, but I also don't think it's bad she went there at all. The obvious comparison would be the cultural embargo against South Africa during apartheid but that was different, there was a massive movement which cut them off from a vast array of cultural connections. Boycotts are only effective if they're undertaken by significant numbers at a time, if a few scattered individuals do it the effects of their refusal to engage are negligible. They can also have negative effects. For example, some Isreali academics who've produced work critical of their government have had a hard time getting their work published in international journals due to the partial academic boycott of Israel, and I don't think that's very helpful myself.
In Bjork's defense you have to balance out slight stimulation of the economy with the possible positive of being a dissenting voice in a country. Not playing there might make her immune to an accusation of hypocrisy but on the other hand it isn't getting involved with a situation she obviously feels strongly about either. Also, making money from a country whose government's actions you disagree with doesn't necessarily make you a hypocrite. If it did anyone who dissented in their own country would be open to that accusation.
The Viz:
It's one thing to express your viewpoint in a respectful manner and another to try to force your ideals on others. Sadly, most musicians who try to take some sort of political stance end up belonging to the latter group. The main offender that comes to mind in that case is Billy Joe Armstrong, whose self-righteous high-school-dropout politics have gotten increasingly irksome in recent years. It's fine to use your art to raise the issues or whatever, but when you decide that you are the sole arbiter of all that is right and wrong and that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow an inferior human being, you cross a dangerous line.
Hat:
If you would like to find a specific instance of Billy Joe Armstrong saying someone was an inferior human being for disagreeing with him about politics, that would be really neat!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version