|
herfacechair -> RE: Dixie Chicks: Radical Chicks? (7/18/2006 8:44:09 PM)
|
Noah: This misinformation has been stated and repeated here and has stood unchallenged. I think it needs to be addressed.
Negative. Any attempts to compare the willing actions of former fans to that of German citizens in concert - or under coercion - is comparing apples and oranges at best and misguided at worse.
Noah: It simply wasn't the case that the German people stood by in impotent horror as some foreign beings called "Nazis" appeared and wrested their books from them. Obviously the Nazi's were German too. That aside, there was plenty of enthusiasm among the citizenry for these measures and worse ones--unattributable to Nazi violence.
First things first, when he made that comment, it was understood that the NAZI’s were Germans, not foreigners. Yes, they were Germans, and as an organization, they were imbedded throughout German society.
It does not matter if the burnings were coerced, or done voluntarily; it was done in conjunction with NAZI activity. Which is nowhere near what happened with the Dixie Chick CD burning incident. There was no coordination coming from the Republican party. This act was unorganized and carried out by fans across the country.
Noah: Plenty of citizens voluntarily and gleefully fed the book bonfires with "books they had bought themselves".
Again, comparing apples and oranges. SOMEONE or a group of people caused them to voluntarily to burn their books that they bought themselves. They did not wake up one day, all of a sudden disliked what the authors said, and burned the books. A group of people fanned the flames and got them going with the burnings. In the Dixie Chick case, it was the acts of the Dixie Chick singer that caused people to burn their DC CDs.
Noah: Long before the Nazis took power, Herman Hesse, one of the most revered writers in Germany's recent history, wrote with deep dismay about the despicable way so many of his countrymen from every station in life were going "patriotically" along with calls to abandon and even destroy foreign literature, music and art. This was not a result of violent government coercion to burn books, but rather things likeincendiary speeches and editorials in newspapers and weak, forgettable songs performed and published not for art's sake but to simply whip up the citizens in favor of war.
This goes back to how well imbedded the NAZI’s were in German society and to how much more involved they were than the Republican party here in the U.S. As you can see by the two bold red statements, these people were stirred up in a frenzy by SOMEONE. This SOMEONE, or a group of people, engaged in a propaganda campaign to get them to burn their books.
It was not the foreign writers themselves that caused these people to burn their foreign authored books. It was that call that you talked about to abandon and destroy foreign literature, music, and art. Those authors did not make that call.
BIG difference when you are trying to compare this event to the Dixie Chick fans burning their Dixie Chick CD’s. In this case, it was the statement of a Dixie Chick that lead to their fans to take this action.
Noah: Read the Noon Day Press collection of Hesse essays entitled "If the War Goes On" if you can't accept my challenge to your claims about general German innocence of bookburning.
Does not matter. Whether they were coerced into doing it, or if they did so voluntarily in answer to a call to burn things that were foreign, this is NOT comparable to the actions of the Dixie Chick fans. Assuming that it is amounts to inductive fallacy.
Noah: In fact I can't think of a better book to reccomend to any reader with political sensibility in these times.
Your opinion that we should read his opinion is noted. Whether they did it voluntarily or not - given that they were working side by side with the Nazis in doing so - destroys any attempts to compare the Dixie Chick CD burning to that of the Nazi book burnings.
Noah: Voluntary public burning of literature, music and art for political reasons happened in Germany before and during WW1 as well as before and during WW2.
I doubt that it would have happened without encouragement from a major group of people, you know, that call to burn foreign works of literature, art, and music.
Noah: It is an error or a lie to say that it was all, or even predominantly attributable to Nazi coercion.
Whether it was due to coercion or not is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that - as you put it - there was a call to do that. People responded to that call. Unlike the case of the Dixie Chick CD burning where people responded without that call.
Noah: If you want to say that the voluntary German public bookfires should not be compared to those of the DC's fickle fans for some particular reasons, that's fine. Make your case if you can.
OK, the “voluntary” German public book fires SHOULD NOT be compared to those of the Dixie Chick’s voluntarily burning of the Dixie Chick CD’s.
calls to abandon and even destroy foreign literature, music and art.
incendiary speeches and editorials in newspapers and weak, forgettable songs performed and published not for art's sake but to simply whip up the citizens in favor of war
In order to prove that the two are comparable, you would have to prove that the voluntary acts of the fans completely resulted from calls by the Republican Party to abandon and destroy the CD’s, as well as from incendiary speeches, editorials, and songs.
I don’t recall any such calls, but I do know for a fact that the majority reacted without encouragement from the republican party, from bad ‘songs’, incendiary speeches, etc.
Noah: But please don't invent fanciful accounts of history to make your case for you.
And you do the same. I don’t see a historical comparison, even if the Germans burnt their books voluntarily.
That would be like accusing everybody that goes to the fire range to fire their shotguns as “people planning to commit murder” because killers in the past did this very same activity.
Noah: To Feastie I would like to say please attend to the poster who asked you why the DCs should not speak out against the deceitful conduct of that man when you make no complaint about the jingoistic pro-Bush, pro-war songs and public statements of other "country" artists.
She does not have to, I did it for her. But I will give the cliff notes version here. Some messages give the enemy hope. Others don’t give the enemy hope. If you support the troops, then for gods sake don’t do something that gives the enemy hope. Meaning, if you decide to exercise the freedom of speech, have the responsibility to hold your tongue when what you say could enable the enemy. Express your opinion where someone would not be able to deliver it to the enemy.
If, on the other hand, you say something that does not enable the enemy, then by all means gas on.
I know that this sounds crass, but heck, we are at war.
Noah: These people beating the drums of war are surely speaking in a voice louder than yours. Did you deprive yourself of their music too? Do you feel they are morally wrong to sing their political songs and make their political statements?
You are comparing apples and oranges. If an artist is going to enable our enemies, I am not going to support her/him by purchasing their products. I don’t believe in supporting useful idiots. I am going to exercise customer sovereignty.
Those people beating the drums of war? They are saying things that the enemy does not quite want to hear.
She is not saying that her exercising her freedom of speech is morally wrong. It is the lack of responsibility that came with it, the singer’s being a popcorn fart in an area she does not have that much knowledge in, her not caring about the possible consequences of it, etc, that she is attacking.
Noah: To the person who said that one's military and its actions must be supported "no matter what" I would like to suggest that you read the writings of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine and others among the early American patriots.
Actually, the majority of our founding fathers would disagree with people lambasting the president and his Iraq War policies. Keep in mind that our fight for independence was not a popular war among the colonials. By all accounts, they had the opportunity to argue that the war was “un-winnable”. Had we listened to these nay sayers, our navy ships would have “HMS” instead of “USS” in front of them.
Noah: They all disagreed with you, obviously.
UMMM, NO. Support the troops no matter what… If they disagreed with that, they would not have passed laws allowing the continentals to confiscate live stalk from colonial farmers in order to feed their troops. So much for the poor farmer’s right to sell their live stalk to whomever they wish.
Noah: If they didn't we'd still be subjects of the Queen.
Actually, if we listened to the war dissenters, we would be subjects of the Queen and would be talking about support for the royal marines, royal army, royal navy, and royal airforce. Thank God we did not listen to the war dissenters then, and thank God we are disregarding their misguided opinions now.
Noah: And please do think of those German citizens who supported the German troops "no matter what" even as those troops dragged German citizens from the ghettos to the death camps.
Speaking of which, where are our “death camps?” The last time I recall, the last time we had internment camps on American soil was around World War II. How many Japanese Americans were interned on our own soil? The fact that we have not gone back to that speaks volumes.
Again there are big differences between the German’s then and the U.S. now. Unless, of course, you could show me a state where the United States Military has arresting powers, and you could show me examples of Americans being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night to be marched off to concentration camps.
Noah: How many more innocent lives could have been saved if people uniformly abandoned preposterous ideas like supporting one's military "no matter what,"
This is applicable to the German case, but not to the U.S. case. The question should be; how long should we be giving hope to the terrorists by continuing to dissent this war? These are people who could have dropped their arms and stopped fighting but are struggling along in hopes that the dissent back home prevails. How many more Iraqi lives must be lost in the hands of these terrorists hoping to outlast us, hoping that the dissent back home will help them achieve their gaols?
THAT is where you should be worrying about how many more innocent lives should be lost.
Noah: and instead acted in accordance of a principle of supporting truth and justice when the government and military go dangerously off the rails.
We are acting in accordance of a principle of supporting truth and justice. Truth? Iraq was a threat. Sadman posed a threat. He had to be dealt with under the asymmetrical warfare conditions that we found ourselves under. Justice? I have not seen any lost of justice since this war started.
The fact that the military is not running affairs on U.S. soil outside of the military installations speaks volumes to the fact that the military is not dangerously off the rails. The fact that our three branches of government are still running and acting as checks and balances against each other shows that our government has not gone off the rails either.
Noah: The thing which was supposed to make The United States different from all nations which had come before was that it was to be based upon rationally held ideals rather than on blind loyalty to some ruler or tribe.
Expecting someone to hold their tongue when their speech can enable the enemy is NOT blind loyalty. It is COMMON SENSE. Rationally held ideals does not include yapping your mouth in a way that could give the enemy an advantage. In fact, that is NOT rational, it is stupid.
Noah: Blind, silent loyalty is un-American.
And assuming that our support for the president and the troops is blind loyalty is un-American as well.
Noah: Speaking out against a deceitful president is entirely patriotic.
Where were you when they sacked Major Shane Sellers for speaking out against a deceitful president in the late 90’s? The guy had to retire because of an article that he did slamming Clinton and his lies.
However, accusing a president who is not deceitful of being such is NOT patriotic. I would place it under one or two categories - being treasonous or being a useful spokesperson for the enemy depending on whether one is doing it deliberately or is simply not thinking.
|
|
|
|
