Whoa, whoa, back up here.
I personally am going to give Jammin the benefit of the doubt, and say that he wasn't a big fan in the 80's, or became a fan after that? Because it's a fact that all of the '90's fans pretty much missed out on the overtly "political" side of U2--in America, that is. Both musically and in their American shows, the band were much less "political" than in the 80's. In Europe it was MUCH different--they had the Sarajevo Broadcasts, MacPhisto who called up world leaders and ranted in his "devil" guise, goose-stepping and preaching about Nazis in Germany, the 'One" broadcast in Germany after the series of attacks on immigrant Turkish communities there, and of course the whole Irish Peace Process that overshadowed the PopMart tour...but not in the U.S. In America, the '90's shws were more about social and cultural trends..pointed and often witty commentary on changing trends in US society. But nothing direct, and overt--no topical
reaching." Jammin, get hold of some '80's bootlegs and you'll find that the band has toned it down. WAYYYYYY down.
Many people, the media included, were complaining about HTDAAB being too "blah", too neutral, no great statements to match that great title and return-to-rocking-form of the music. With all that was going on today, I was hoping the tour would be a return to the band's "political" roots. I could not be more pleased. I for one can't wait to see the spectacle. I'm hoping that people see Bono dropping to his knees blindfolded and in an "abused prisoner" position and CRINGE. I'm hoping they'll read the Declaration and do some soul-searching. I am also hoping that the Declaration will remain in the European shows b/c if anybody over there is still supporting Dubya's "Culture of Death" policies of Empire than they'll soul-search as well. People aren't mentioning it in reviews yet, but as the tour goes on, funny how people pick things up and it starts to sink in.
Now, as to the preaching itself. Has anybody read that FANTASTIC book "America In The Age Of Genocide"that came out about 3 or 4 yrs ago? Forgot the author, it won a Pulitzer prize I think. Not a happy subject, but--like "And The Band Played On"--it should be required reading not for every American only but for everyone else. It discusses the fantastic level of indifference our "leaders" had to all the atrocities committed in this past decade. One passage I vividly remember is about the guy who coined the term "genocide" and lobbied for its acceptance by the U.N. when it was created in 1948. I forgot this guy's name, or if he had actually been a concentration camp survivor or if he was one of the G.I's who had participated in the "liberation" of the camps, but after WWII was over he devoted the rest of his life to this cause. He was haunted not only by the searing spectacle of the camps, and the aftermath of the War in general, but even more by the West's complete and utter indifference--and often even outright hostility--to the Jews' plight. Not only Western Europe but America, for example, was openly hostile to Jewish immigration, and closed their doors to Camp survivors. There was a lot of anti-Semitism in the US too, not as open as in Europe, but in Washington, it was there. A fact which Western leaders nicely managed to sweep under the rug and make us all forget. ( a fact that Spielberg discreetly hinted at in a line or two at the end of his film.)Which was part of the reason why they were so quick to accept Israel--it was great that all the rejected immigrants now had a place to go to. And also as a result of this indifference, many Jewish leaders had to do some pretty shady things to get Israel off the ground--things that today we would call terrorist acts, (like blowing up British oil wells, and yes, a hotel bombing or four) and which had nothing to do with Palestinians. You remember Itzhak Stern, the accountant for Oskar Schindler, the guy played by Ben Kingsley? In real life, Stern wasn't only everything you saw in the movie, he was also a smuggler for Mossad Aliyah Bet, the chief agency set up by the Jewish Resistance for getting Jews into Palestine after the war and arming them for the freedom fight--Britian was preparing to leave Palestine and hand it over to the Arabs--well, I'd better not get too much into this. Suffice it to say that after the War, Imild-mannered Itzhak Stern became a lot more than a scholarly accountant. He did some pretty..um... interesting things--for the defense of Israel.)
Anyway, getting OT. Where was I? This guy I was talking about had been seared for life by what he saw in the camps. He wasn't a general, or a journalist, just an ordinary guy, but he had a mission, he felt as if God was speaking to him. He couldn't eat, he couldn't sleep, he began to look like those he rescued. His whole existence was devoted to making people aware of what he had seen and making sure it would never happen again. He coined the term "genocide" and wrote a treatise on just what this entailed, and began going around America and Europe, haunting the halls of power, pushing people to address the tragedy of the camps and bring public attention to the issue. The relief agencies, who had to deal directly with the human flotsam of the war, were the only ones who wanted to talk about the camps.....everywhere else, almost complete indifference. I was pretty shocked, reading this, BTW. We don't talk about THIS stuff anymore, do we? All the media and leaders in the West wanted to talk about was how to carve up the German pie....the meaning of the Bomb....and most importantly, the rise of Communist Russia. The "M/i complex", the new UN, and all that. Who gave a frig about those whom Hitler had destroyed? (Why do you think so much of Israel in the early days was fund raisers, "plant a tree for Israel", etc? Because the nations of the West were horrified by what had been done and gave money for the birth of the new Jewish State? NOPE. We didn't figure out Israel was good for anything at all until Nasser came along in the '50's and started making nationalistc rumblings-and approached our enemy, Communist Russia, with promises and offers of military assitance, in exchange for a lot of things. Then we said, "Uh oh, maybe we need a strong buffer against Russian encroachment in the ME, and protecting Western access to the Suez Canal." So THEN we began to donate planes and military hardware and billions of $ to Israel. But talk to anybody Jewish (which I'm not, BTW) and they'll tell that for the first 7 or 8 yrs, Israel was built from donations alone, just about, it was a struggling THird World country..b/c no-one else cared--did more then pay loud lip service anyway.)
Anyway, when the U.N. was set up, there this guy was with his scraps of paper, talking about the Holocaust ( a new term), and h the word Genocide. A few minor U.N. mucky-mucks finally agreed to meet with him just to get rid of him (he had begun to hang out at the Headquarters and local media were beginning to sniff around), and they took a look at his essay, patted him on the back, said, "yes, sure, OK, we'll look into it," and the equvalent of "Have a nice day." The late 40's passed, years went by, and nothing got done. Nobody wanted to talk about the term "genocide", or address inserting any language in any official document, esp the UN. The bearucrats began to get sick of him being such a pest--waylaying anybody he could get hold of in the hallways, in whatever Parliament he got access to--and began to get openly resentful. Then, sometime in the early 50's, he finally died, his work unfulfilled. One of the aforementioned journalists got hold of his documents and essay, and, outraged, printed them in a major newspaper, and someone in Washington got hold of it, and finally there was a serious discussion of the subject. (Or perhaps it was just a coincidence that the Nuremberg Trials were in the first stages of planning by that point...but sorry, the Nazi weren't be tried first and foremost for the slaughter of Jews.If they hadn't attacked the West, I doubt they'd have been tried at all. Again, self-interest and realpolitic came first. Ratifying a "genocide convention" would make the West look noble. Bet this isn't the side of the story you're used to hearing, folks?)
These days, Bono is like that anonymous inventor of the term "genoicide." Since coming back from Africa in 2002, he is a changed man, whatever he may have been before. In some strange way, he may have come to the conclusion that in some subliminal way, everything he has experienced in life up until this point was God's way of prepareing him for the great "work" of his life. Whether this is an insufferable bit of ego on his part may be up to conjecture. but those of us who are longtime fans will also know how humble he truly is. Any ego he posesses is strcitly musical career ambition; he has spent a lifetime telling us how good a Christian he is NOT, and constantly depricating himself, the Rock God (though NOT his music. This is a lesson many in the US evangelical community should take heed of.) Think of it: his going to Africa first in 1985; the whole process by which world leaders came to "know" him in the 1990's, via the ZooTV stage phone (so that mind-blowing spectacle DID have its merits), the long period of education in dealing with the music media, which prepared him for dealing with those in the back halls of power. Even his Christianity, which would serve him so well in gaining access to those in power currently in America. This would not have been possible earlier in his career, they had not been around long enough. The U2 coropration had to become just that. In the halls of power, you have to have clout. I have often imagined him in the moment when he realized what it was the Lord was telling him, and the joyous moment of acceptance, as well as the misgivings he must have felt at the enormity of the task. But as always, with him and U2: "Not my will, Thy Will."
Ok, before I make this a sermon of my own, let me try to wrap this up. Like that other man, Bono has come back from Africa a man on fire. He has been to the camps, in a sense, and can we fault him or blame him if he is an emissary from another world? We have not seen what he has seen. You can write about seeing hundreds of people dying three to a bed, or touring whole portions of countries where (Pol Pot-like), there are nothing but old people and kids in the streets--all the young adults are gone, dead from AIDS. You can write about sitting in a filthy shack which is in the "Beverly Hills" area of Nigeria simply because it is one of only 3% of homes in the ENTIRE COUNTRY that has electricity. (!?!?) But I think that there can be equivalent for actually seeing it. Think of the most terrible experience you've ever been through, and how nobody else can possibly imagine it. Does anyobdy have th right to judge? Like that man of 60 yrs ago, Bono has been to hell and back, and had not even to fully experience its ravages to be haunted for life.
And in addition to being haunted for life, can we fault him if he IS a little pissed off right now, yet is polite enough only hint at it? If we were him, and had seen what he had seen (which as someone alluded to, is SO MUCH MORE on another level then American poverty at its worst) and then had to have his preconceptions of habitual indifference shaken by singular instances of total media saturation and lightening-like levels of involevement, what would you think? What are we supposed to think when the media of this country scream nighbt and day about the "culture of life", and witness the unprecidented level of debate, politcal willpower and involvement, and passion devoted to the cause of one Terri Schialvo? Think of the outpourng of the tsunami weeks. Think even more, though, of the fight over Terri this past week and a half. Can we forgive Bono if in a moment of bitterness (which he MUST feel at times), he might have said, "What is so
special about HER?" Those Evengelical Christians in Florida who took the fight over Terri to Bush after the Florida court had its say--what did their church network say to get them involved so passionately? Maybe b/c she was totally innocent--(no whore or gay or drug pusher, like those AIDS-stricken must be.).
Think about it: Remember the little "mini-tour" of the Bible Belt he did in '03 with Naomi Judd to raise Evenagelical America's awareness or the African AIDS problem and stir them to action. He latr told a European leader that it was like "getting blood from a stone." Now, this past 2 weeks, he sees what that same evangelical community chose to do--and successfully in terms of political involvement--in the course of 24 HOURS over a single white, middle-class, CATHOLIC, and non-gay/non-AIDS stricken Terri.
What would YOU feel? Should we ask him if he hates them right now, and is a little bitter?
Can we forgive Bono if he is pissed off enough to be thinking, "Who the #&$(# are WE to determine who or who not is 'innocent' enough to deserve our political will?" We don't know what he thinks of this case, and frankly even if someone was tasteless enough to demand an answer, we should not make it a litmus test or pass judgment if someday he refs it in an interview. (he;d not be dumb enough for that, I think.) As far as he is concerned, from what he has seen from the POV of an outsider in this country, the past few years have shown that if you are oppressed or suffering, , you are NOT going to get any help unless you fall into the right "category"of those persecuted. And African AIDS victims do not fall in that category. If anything, the media's involvement is even worse, they are more to blame than ever. You have a few stalwart individuals at the majors (Time, Newsweek, etc) who do their job and all they CAN do, (reprt the facts and hopefully have photos), but they are up against a jauggurnaut who by means overt AND subliminal say 2 things: 1)the problem is too big for YOU to anything about, and 2)The recipients of our largesse must be WORTHY of it.
Who the
, as I have said before, are we to determine who or who not is worthy of our 15 minutes of the spotlight?
Bono will up there preaching night after night, and we must let him. I can't begin to appreicate or even imagine the horrors he has seen....TV can only hint at it. He is trying his best to communicate to us the unthinkable. No matter how "annoying" many may think it is, I for one am not going to condemn him. For like someone else said, he is simply "bearing witness". And as many have noted, in an era when the culture of celevbrity is biiger than the talent of the celebrity themselves, it may just be the only thing that rouses politicans from our stupor.
If we seem indifferent, then a) we are, b) we must resist the tidal wave of media and individuals trying to drum into our heads one waty or another every day the message we are hopless; and 3) we must look to the Schiavo case, think about what we have seen as regards the way politicans operate when properly"motivated", and do the most we possibly can. Trouble is, before Terri came long last week, we could delude ourselves that it was the politicians' fault more than ours, for their indifference no matter what we did or said. Now we know they WILL act,if we ask them to.
And don't fault Bono preaching. He is simply bearing witness. As he said, this is first and formeost about hmself--he has accused himself time and again of the same indifference that we al at times share. In the 80's, even, he used to say,"ive used my own music to wake me up." This is what he means in "Fast Cars" in the lines "Don't think about the pain/ don't let it slip away/you know I miss mine sometimes." By that, he is imploring the American soldeir in Iraq in the song never to become inured to the horrors of war/ie human suffering. When Bono says he "misses" his pain, per se, he is not talking about "pain"so much as he means that he does not want to become indifference to the pain he feels at human suffering. And all too common trait of us all.
to you for your good work helping others.
This thread needed some humour.
