Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Throughout its brief history, rock and roll has been quite limited in its scope: to this day, the vast majority of rock/pop songs fall into only a handful of categories: love, angst, and dancing. However, the boundaries of rock are occasionally expanded. The era of the Vietnam War led to protest songs; and bands like Pink Floyd, U2, and Rage Against the Machine have continued the tradition of sticking it to "The Man." U2 itself helped introduce Christian beliefs and values into a music that had been mostly ambivalent (and occasionally antagonistic) to Christianity, a precedent that has been continued, in their own way, by bands like P.O.D. Of course, both protest songs and meditations on Jehovah are still the exception and not the rule; but they are allowable exceptions. Should the same now be said for songs of patriotism?
Consider: rock and roll originated in the post-war 50's and became dominant in the Vietnam-era 60's. As a musical form, it has never had to react to a Pearl Harbor or a World War. Now it has, in the form of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terror. How should it now react? Should it still unilaterally protest this war as it did Vietnam and El Salvador, or is it okay for rock stars to rally around the America, its flag, and its efforts to defeat those who threaten it?
A few artists - notably a few country singers and classic rockers - have answered this question with a resounding, "yes," and there have been two reactions. The first is well represented by a writer for the UK's Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick:
On the other side of the political spectrum - and the other side of the Atlantic - we have Stanley Kurtz of National Review Online:
Not surprisingly, I believe that rock and roll can (and, in this case, should) support the U.S. government's efforts to fight terrorism. There's nothing to suggest that patriotism cannot be part of the language of rock and roll. The typically shallow music has already allowed politically conscious messages (albeit mostly songs of protest). And the typically rebellious, self-centered music has room enough for occasional submission to God - as evidenced in U2's album, October. If rock can protest war, why can't it support it? If rock can embrace God, why not country?
Beyond that, I disagree with McCormick's statement that "pop culture is almost instinctively pacifist." I know of very few protest songs written during World War II (Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" notwithstanding; even this song was used patriotically); I know of none that became popularly used to protest American efforts in Europe and the Pacific. Further, the popular culture, strictly defined as the culture that is embraced by the population at large, often embraced the idea of a just and necessary war. During WWII, movie studios made films to support war bonds and enlistment; the American Civil War saw the birth of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
(Read the above link for an interesting digression into that "indispensable fight song.")
I think that there's room enough in the genre for rock stars to openly and defiantly support the war on terror. What do you guys think? Is rock and roll a big enough tent for patriotism, or is the idea a contradiction of ideas?
Bubba
Consider: rock and roll originated in the post-war 50's and became dominant in the Vietnam-era 60's. As a musical form, it has never had to react to a Pearl Harbor or a World War. Now it has, in the form of the September 11th attacks and the ensuing war on terror. How should it now react? Should it still unilaterally protest this war as it did Vietnam and El Salvador, or is it okay for rock stars to rally around the America, its flag, and its efforts to defeat those who threaten it?
A few artists - notably a few country singers and classic rockers - have answered this question with a resounding, "yes," and there have been two reactions. The first is well represented by a writer for the UK's Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick:
On the other side of the political spectrum - and the other side of the Atlantic - we have Stanley Kurtz of National Review Online:
Not surprisingly, I believe that rock and roll can (and, in this case, should) support the U.S. government's efforts to fight terrorism. There's nothing to suggest that patriotism cannot be part of the language of rock and roll. The typically shallow music has already allowed politically conscious messages (albeit mostly songs of protest). And the typically rebellious, self-centered music has room enough for occasional submission to God - as evidenced in U2's album, October. If rock can protest war, why can't it support it? If rock can embrace God, why not country?
Beyond that, I disagree with McCormick's statement that "pop culture is almost instinctively pacifist." I know of very few protest songs written during World War II (Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" notwithstanding; even this song was used patriotically); I know of none that became popularly used to protest American efforts in Europe and the Pacific. Further, the popular culture, strictly defined as the culture that is embraced by the population at large, often embraced the idea of a just and necessary war. During WWII, movie studios made films to support war bonds and enlistment; the American Civil War saw the birth of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
(Read the above link for an interesting digression into that "indispensable fight song.")
I think that there's room enough in the genre for rock stars to openly and defiantly support the war on terror. What do you guys think? Is rock and roll a big enough tent for patriotism, or is the idea a contradiction of ideas?
Bubba
