Post by mcallan on Nov 20, 2005 14:13:06 GMT -5
I love www.crooksandliars.com There are few websites that have as much to offer in terms of media coverage of politics.
That said, I was rather caught off guard by a discussin that was posted this weekend on Steve Earle.
A blogger rather innocently suggested that, for folks who are interested in politically progressive, country music, Steve Earle is a great singer to listen to.
What followed was one of the ugliest, divisive debates I've seen on a blog in quite some time with lots of personal insults being thrown around. A majority of the insults were lobbed at fans of Earle, Willie Nelson, etc. Country music was called "the Heart of Darkness". Some suggested that artists like Earle are talentless yahoos.
I'm really not certain how to unpack that . . . Wow.
One person said that they though Earle was great until he started writing songs that are "sympathetic to our enemy." On this one, I had to respond.
The person was obviously referring to "John Walker Blues" from the CD, Jerusalem. What follows is my response:
There is one comment in particular, I feel I should address here. The comment that Steve Earle started writing songs that are "sympathetic to our enemy." I believe the person is referring to "John Walker Blues," a song Earle sings from the perspective of the so-called "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh.
I suppose it’s fair to say the song expresses “sympathy” for the enemy, but I don’t think it’s that simple.
Earle’s lyrics paint a picture (accurate or not) of a young man who is alienated from society at large, unable to relate to what he perceives as a shallow and meaningless, pop culture-driven, materialistic hegemony. Like so many young people, he yearns for a place to belong, something to believe in, and, yes, something to fight for.
Some kids turn to music, to drugs, to God, the military, or to one political party or the other. Some turn to family. Some join cults. Some just lose hope.
Earle’s song is sympathetic to Lindh to the extent that he (Earle) believes that there are profound lessons for usin examining the reasons why a young American like Lindh might abandon his family, leave his country, and align himself with a terrorist organization. There are similarly powerful lessons for us in examining the motives of a Timothy McVeigh, a Terry Nichols, a Jim Jones or a David Koresch. Rather than simply demonizing Lindh as the “enemy,” Earle attempts to understand him. Perhaps that qualifies as sympathy. I personally believe it goes beyond that to ask the deeper social, cultural, and political questions that may aim towards an explanation of why. Why Jonestown? Why Waco? Why Ruby Ridge? Why Oklahoma City? These are questions that I am sure many citizens in France are currently asking themselves.
Thanks for reading. I know this was a long one.
Love each other,
Marc Callan
That said, I was rather caught off guard by a discussin that was posted this weekend on Steve Earle.
A blogger rather innocently suggested that, for folks who are interested in politically progressive, country music, Steve Earle is a great singer to listen to.
What followed was one of the ugliest, divisive debates I've seen on a blog in quite some time with lots of personal insults being thrown around. A majority of the insults were lobbed at fans of Earle, Willie Nelson, etc. Country music was called "the Heart of Darkness". Some suggested that artists like Earle are talentless yahoos.
I'm really not certain how to unpack that . . . Wow.
One person said that they though Earle was great until he started writing songs that are "sympathetic to our enemy." On this one, I had to respond.
The person was obviously referring to "John Walker Blues" from the CD, Jerusalem. What follows is my response:
There is one comment in particular, I feel I should address here. The comment that Steve Earle started writing songs that are "sympathetic to our enemy." I believe the person is referring to "John Walker Blues," a song Earle sings from the perspective of the so-called "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh.
I suppose it’s fair to say the song expresses “sympathy” for the enemy, but I don’t think it’s that simple.
Earle’s lyrics paint a picture (accurate or not) of a young man who is alienated from society at large, unable to relate to what he perceives as a shallow and meaningless, pop culture-driven, materialistic hegemony. Like so many young people, he yearns for a place to belong, something to believe in, and, yes, something to fight for.
Some kids turn to music, to drugs, to God, the military, or to one political party or the other. Some turn to family. Some join cults. Some just lose hope.
Earle’s song is sympathetic to Lindh to the extent that he (Earle) believes that there are profound lessons for usin examining the reasons why a young American like Lindh might abandon his family, leave his country, and align himself with a terrorist organization. There are similarly powerful lessons for us in examining the motives of a Timothy McVeigh, a Terry Nichols, a Jim Jones or a David Koresch. Rather than simply demonizing Lindh as the “enemy,” Earle attempts to understand him. Perhaps that qualifies as sympathy. I personally believe it goes beyond that to ask the deeper social, cultural, and political questions that may aim towards an explanation of why. Why Jonestown? Why Waco? Why Ruby Ridge? Why Oklahoma City? These are questions that I am sure many citizens in France are currently asking themselves.
Thanks for reading. I know this was a long one.
Love each other,
Marc Callan