Speak Out Against War, Destroy Your Career

[shannon_a]

The Dixie Chicks, a Texas Country Band, recently spoke out against the plans to attack Iraq in a London performance.

The Result? Stations all over the nation are pulling their songs off their play lists because they're "unpatriotic".

Welcome, once again, to the new Totalitarian America. Hitler would have been proud.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20030314/en_nm/leisure_chicks_dc

Comments

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I suddenly have a lot more respect for the Dixie Chicks, anyway...

[odheirre.livejournal.com]

True, but whether it is "mandate from the dictator" or "mandate from the radio services" or even "mandate from the masses", the end result is the same - the Dixie Chicks exercised their freedom of speech, and are being punished for it. That is what is sad.

[odheirre.livejournal.com]

Right. But as I see it, the "responsibility of free speech" was needed by the folks who are trashing their albums, not the Dixie Chicks. For example, say I'm gay, and I come out at work. A week later, they fire me. Should I have considered all the consequences before I came out? Possibly. Does that make it right that they fired me? Definitely not. Saying "oh, that's the way life is" is, frankly, a defeatist attitude. We should strive for better.

Granted, the situation about the Dixie Chicks is much more complex than the scenario I painted above. But still...

Plus, as shannon_a mentioned earlier, it's not a groundswell uprising from nowhere. It's partly controlled by media and government.

Woo hoo, learned how to use the lj user tag

[odheirre.livejournal.com]

I was going to let this pass, but two things struck me.

...and making a statement using "celebrity" to insult the man who (whether you like it or not) is the President of our country.

The lead singer said that she was "ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas" and complained about the foreign policy. Hardly insults. At what point can you question the actions of our leaders?

Nationalism does not start with corporations, it starts in our hearts.
This is the biggie. Are you saying that nationalism is inborn? I don't think it "starts" anywhere - nationalism is too complex a subject. Bringing up Germany again (and in more modern times, Vietnam and Iraq), do you think nationalism started in their citizens' hearts as well? You seem to be making a line between us and them, "their nationalism is brought by external events, while ours is internal", when both sides are a complex interaction between internal and external events.

[odheirre.livejournal.com]

I can agree to that - sounds good. I mean no ill will, and like to thank our host, shannon_a.

Gosh, I like that lj user tag

[shannon_a]

Unlike in the 30s and 40s with Hitler, Mussolini, etc, we did not come out of a time of war to be rebuilt and then be told to make reparation. We are not in a desperate situation, where we are looking for anyone to give us hope and pride in who we are.

I actually think you're precisely explaining the situation the country is currently in. If you look back you'll see that Bush's astronomical approval rating, and his ability to start turning the machinery of war toward the Middle East, all stems from 9/11. I'm very certain that, following the shock of a major terrorist attack on American soil, many people felt like they were in a "desperate situation" and they're seeking any answer.

As the horror of 9/11 slowly fades, and we begin to realize that we're now facing problems that the rest of the world has for decades, I think we'll see a slow return to sanity and a turning away from the demagogues who took advantage of that tragedy to press their own agendas.

I intend no insult here, I merely cannot agree that Americans are puppets, controlled by the media and government. For if we were, then none of us would be in debate here, as we would all be under the mind control of those aforementioned organizations.

The exceptions don't disprove the trend.

I read lots of alternative press sources. To a certain extent LJ qualifies for that definition. I don't take news at face value, but instead try and understand the real motives behind the headlines.

If I'm not brainwashed, that's why, but frankly most Americans don't do that. They believe the news is innately true, and don't even consider what's not reported.

When you control the media, you control the opinions of most people.

Fortunately, the Internet is bringing new mass media to the world that isn't necessarily controlled by today's corporations and as we advance into the 21st century, I think that'll make all the difference ...

[shannon_a]

It's much less simple than you make it out.

In Hitler's time, perhaps he would have single-handedly destroyed the Dixie Chicks. But, it could also have been the doing of the people that Hitler had brainwashed through patriotic and nationalistic programs. Turning in your neighbors and all that jazz was very popular in Hitler's Germany.

Today it's the choice of national or international corporations that often get to make these life and death decisions. Those corporations in turn (1) choose our presidents and other national leaders -and- (2) tell people what to think. And even if the people in turn come back to criticize this music group, it's all tied up with what they've been told by those corporations. Or, to look at it another way, they're turning in their unpatriotic neighbors.

Although more complex, that looks very similar to me to the rulers themselves making the decisions about what can be said and what can't.