i never acted like they played for free or that they were christ. they make money. but they also don't build their entire band's image around violently overthrowing capitalism. so there is nothing hypocritical in them making a good living when the core of their message is simply to try and make a difference. the core of RATM message is "let's kill innocent people in the streets to bring down the rich people." RATM are rich people, and they've never lifted a finger to kick start any sort of violent revolution in america. thus, they are full of shit and they are hypocrites.
That's bs. First of all, ratm never suggested killing innocent people. And they would be hypocrites if they faked their anger/rage against the current system just to win a little more money.
I'm still wondering how do you doubt their anger isn't real?
Some said (not necessarily you) that they reunited now to jumb on the antiwar/bush bandwagon to make some money. Why can't they be genuinely pissed off like many of their fans?
And yes they have money (though much much less than pj since this is the example that is used) and... they even were signed on a major. Does this make their message less accurate? They are not happy with something and express that frustration.
The fact that Zack isn't currently serving lifetime in prison for killing the assistant director of a corporation doesn't affect the honesty of his message, he believes bush is a criminal (and he isn't alone) and that he shoud have a death sentence a la Saddam. I think he believes it => he is honest about his message.
Only fair in his view, and I heard the same by non musician as well but they weren't asked to sacrifice their lives to prove they really really meant what they were saying.
Finally I always like how when the empire of neoliberal corporate capitalism (the real term for what you might like to call free market democracy, because it sounds nicer), is rightly criticized for being inhumane, indecent, and generally terrible for nearly every single person in the world people point to the fact that socialist systems failed in other countries. Yet you do this without stopping to think that sometimes these systems were democratically elected (for example Chile), yet b/c a socialist democracy is a danger to America was wiped out by a bloody revolution sponsored by the United States (Peru, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). We are not a nice country, we are not a safe country, we are a selfish, pillaging, war mongering, bald faced lying country that IS NOT working for the many in its own 50 states (evidenced by the fact that nearly 30 percent of our children will live in poverty conditions during this year and the number consistently rises), that Cuba has a better voting record, and literacy rate, that socialist medicine works for the many in every country except Canada - which has taken on some "free market" tendencies, that CEO's make 500 to 1 in large corporations over their employees, that we spend 1 billion dollars a day on a war to benefit the rich (see: Halliburton, Oil Companies) we can't even send our kids to schools with running water, new books, and good lighting. Thus dissent in this country is silenced in a far worse way than threatening jail time, it's removed before we even get the chance.
I disagree a lot with the US' current foreign policy. But if there's a thing I find more annoying than Dubya are those persons that think the US is root of all that's evil and wrong with this world. You mentioned my region, Latin America, and I know you mean well, you have good intentions, but you fail to see that your way of thinking is just the other side of the coin. You, like Bush and the Neocons, are thinking your country is allmighty and capable of interfering wherever and whenever it wants, the only difference is that you think the US do it to fuck up countries, whereas Bush is "spreading freedom and democracy". Well I don't see a difference between this way of thinking and Bush Jr. thinking, you know why? Because it considers us poor souls from the Third World as morons or robots with no will whatsoever. I'm not neglecting US (and the USSR) influence during the 70's. But, you really think that everything that happened during that era was due to the sole intervention of the CIA? Come on! Give us some credits, allow us to own our fuckups!! You mentioned Chile. Well, I am Chilean and besides the fact that all my family was in Chile, I've studied a lot and read a lot about those years, I also read a lot about Argentina's politics and I'll tell you this, which is an almost unanimous consensus among political analysts, sociologists and among everybody. The Coup d'Etat carried out by Pinochet (Chile) was succesful mainly because the people, the citizens from both countries, were OK with it. In Chile people really were desperate and extremely unhappy with Allende's government. A few days prior to the Coup his government was declared unconstitutional by Congress. People would go to military facilities and beg them for an uprising rise. Of course, nobody knew how bloody Pinochet's regime would be. My point is: even though there's US (and European) influence in our region we're the guilty ones for our history and if we don't understand that we'll never change it.
About Cuba, come on! You can't be serious about the elections, everybody knows it is a huge facade!
I disagree a lot with the US' current foreign policy. But if there's a thing I find more annoying than Dubya are those persons that think the US is root of all that's evil and wrong with this world. You mentioned my region, Latin America, and I know you mean well, you have good intentions, but you fail to see that your way of thinking is just the other side of the coin. You, like Bush and the Neocons, are thinking your country is allmighty and capable of interfering wherever and whenever it wants, the only difference is that you think the US do it to fuck up countries, whereas Bush is "spreading freedom and democracy". Well I don't see a difference between this way of thinking and Bush Jr. thinking, you know why? Because it considers us poor souls from the Third World as morons or robots with no will whatsoever. I'm not neglecting US (and the USSR) influence during the 70's. But, you really think that everything that happened during that era was due to the sole intervention of the CIA? Come on! Give us some credits, allow us to own our fuckups!! You mentioned Chile. Well, I am Chilean and besides the fact that all my family was in Chile, I've studied a lot and read a lot about those years, I also read a lot about Argentina's politics and I'll tell you this, which is an almost unanimous consensus among political analysts, sociologists and among everybody. The Coup d'Etat carried out by Pinochet (Chile) was succesful mainly because the people, the citizens from both countries, were OK with it. In Chile people really were desperate and extremely unhappy with Allende's government. A few days prior to the Coup his government was declared unconstitutional by Congress. People would go to military facilities and beg them for an uprising rise. Of course, nobody knew how bloody Pinochet's regime would be. My point is: even though there's US (and European) influence in our region we're the guilty ones for our history and if we don't understand that we'll never change it.
About Cuba, come on! You can't be serious about the elections, everybody knows it is a huge facade!
Peace from Latin America
Caterina
Caterina, I don't disagree with your statement. Clearly, you can't start a revolution without the people behind it...however, you also have to have the money, and power to do it - that's where the US comes in. Imagine for a second then if someone who was really rich, and didn't like the US government gave our poor, working-class soldiers millions of dollars, food, and support to overthrow our American government ... similar things could happen. If you don't like Cuba, please look at any number of governments around the world who have had leaders legally elected, only to have army's supported by US money destroy those countries (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq (years ago), Iran, Dominican Republic, etc.). Finally Cuba's elections are no more a facade than American elecions (it's pretty accepted that Bush didn't win in 2000, if not, 2004).
Oh how I wish i was at Rock the Bells. Zack dropped this bomb at the show!
"we need to rise up like the youth in Iraq and bring these fuckers to their knees"
And he said the band and he refuse to back down from calling for Bush to be tried and hung
There are very few people I agree with more in the world than Zack
Its a question of what we as a generation decide to do. Are we willing to graduate, get married have kids, buy our white houses and white picket fences. Or are we going to refuse that, and say "hey thats not how it works"
Bush is a murderer and killer and a war criminal.
And the only way to stop the goddamn war, isnt to go gaga for Obama or Hillary. They aint gonna end it folks.
As Ben Harper said "there are two ways things change. 1)people say "hey I aint going to stand for you putting your boots on my chest any more, and rising up or 2) manhattan being submerged in water due to global warming, or a similar crazy event. And he further stated, its past time for reform.
We need to rise up. Rise! RISE! This system doesnt give a crap about you. And if you think Obama and hilary give a damn about you you must be high on meth.
RISE!
You take the rantings and posturing of musicians far too seriously. Why do you have all these romatic notions towards a rap artist's pleading for a violent revolution?
Can you not form your alligences and world views based on things other thank rock musicians who can't put their money where their mouth is but spout rhetoric indescriminantly anyway?
Its a fucking rock band dude.......relax.......and listen to the music. If you have to crack open a bio of your little buddy Che while you have your headphones on listening to MUSIC so as you don't convulse.......please do so
Caterina, I don't disagree with your statement. Clearly, you can't start a revolution without the people behind it...however, you also have to have the money, and power to do it - that's where the US comes in. Imagine for a second then if someone who was really rich, and didn't like the US government gave our poor, working-class soldiers millions of dollars, food, and support to overthrow our American government ... similar things could happen. If you don't like Cuba, please look at any number of governments around the world who have had leaders legally elected, only to have army's supported by US money destroy those countries (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq (years ago), Iran, Dominican Republic, etc.). Finally Cuba's elections are no more a facade than American elecions (it's pretty accepted that Bush didn't win in 2000, if not, 2004).
I don't believe that the Taliban were a legally elected government. Afghanistan as an example for your statement is only good if you reference the Soviet Union as a destroyer of a legal government.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Violent revolution for the purpose of overthrowing a government has always brought about positive results!
The French Revolution... oh yeah, that's right, hundreds were beheaded and Napoleon came to power leading to the worst war in European history up to that point.
The Russian Revolution... oh yeah, that's right, Stalin came to power and was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his own citizens.
The Chinese Revolution... oh yeah, that's right, they have a regime far more corrupt and abusive than America's and their people have no right to even criticize their government and their lives are micromanaged by a few Communist Party bigwigs in Beijin.
So we need to rise like the youth of Iraq? We should start beheading people in our own country? We should destroy any sense of security in our own country? Hey, that's a brilliant idea! Let's destabilize our country and its government, which will, as history proves (I'm able to provide multiple examples upon request), lead to a brutal dictatorship like Germany in the 1930s and 1940s or complete anarchy like we see in Somalia.
The problem with all this extremist talk of violent revolution is that those who support the revolution make the same exact mistake Bush made in Iraq. They think their idea is great without thinking of the consequences of such a scenario. Yeah, Bush is a problem, but destabilizing our country through violent revolution would cause the development of problems much worse than our country faces today.
I believe the children are our future... unless we stop them now...
Caterina, I don't disagree with your statement. Clearly, you can't start a revolution without the people behind it...however, you also have to have the money, and power to do it - that's where the US comes in. Imagine for a second then if someone who was really rich, and didn't like the US government gave our poor, working-class soldiers millions of dollars, food, and support to overthrow our American government ... similar things could happen. If you don't like Cuba, please look at any number of governments around the world who have had leaders legally elected, only to have army's supported by US money destroy those countries (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq (years ago), Iran, Dominican Republic, etc.). Finally Cuba's elections are no more a facade than American elecions (it's pretty accepted that Bush didn't win in 2000, if not, 2004).
I agree that it sucks that America involves itself too much in other countries' business. The problem is in at least some of those cases, if we didn't get involved, the Soviets would have. That fact alone reduced some of those cases to having either a Soviet supported or American supported government in those countries. Unfortunately, our leaders didn't have the foresight at the time to realize this shit would come back and bite us in the ass in the future.
Bush won in the Electoral College in both elections, so yes, unfortunately (or fortunately, I don't think Gore or Kerry could have done much better) he did win. The Electoral College exists for a reason (although it does need reform).
I believe the children are our future... unless we stop them now...
I agree that it sucks that America involves itself too much in other countries' business. The problem is in at least some of those cases, if we didn't get involved, the Soviets would have. That fact alone reduced some of those cases to having either a Soviet supported or American supported government in those countries. Unfortunately, our leaders didn't have the foresight at the time to realize this shit would come back and bite us in the ass in the future.
Bush won in the Electoral College in both elections, so yes, unfortunately (or fortunately, I don't think Gore or Kerry could have done much better) he did win. The Electoral College exists for a reason (although it does need reform).
The electoral college, and this is a true statement, was originially created to 'fix the errors of the citizens' and make sure the most worthy candidate was elected, and that happened how? Also Soviet intervention during the cold war has been grossly overstated, we always had more bombs/missles etc.
You take the rantings and posturing of musicians far too seriously. Why do you have all these romatic notions towards a rap artist's pleading for a violent revolution?
Can you not form your alligences and world views based on things other thank rock musicians who can't put their money where their mouth is but spout rhetoric indescriminantly anyway?
Its a fucking rock band dude.......relax.......and listen to the music. If you have to crack open a bio of your little buddy Che while you have your headphones on listening to MUSIC so as you don't convulse.......please do so
Have you or anyone who poses this similar argument ever come to think that perhaps people like myself and che6 choose to listen to Pearl Jam and Rage b/c we agreed with their opinions before we got into their music. I remember the first time I purchased a PJ album was b/c they tried to fight ticketmaster, and I thought it was just cause to support the band for. Rage I never got into until 1998 when I had started looking more into our political process, and policies, and didn't like what I saw. After watching the Matrix and Godzilla "Wake Up" and "No Shelter" I started digging their message and got into the band. Now obviously I have also listened to and read other artists and authors because I listen to these bands, but whose to say that I wouldn't have come across Chomsky, Giroux, Zinn or MC5, Old 'Stones, Afrikka Bambatta, on my own accord? On that note, is it not silly now to think that these artists blindly "lead us" to supporting, or doing things, I think most people are smarter than that.
Have you or anyone who poses this similar argument ever come to think that perhaps people like myself and che6 choose to listen to Pearl Jam and Rage b/c we agreed with their opinions before we got into their music. I remember the first time I purchased a PJ album was b/c they tried to fight ticketmaster, and I thought it was just cause to support the band for. Rage I never got into until 1998 when I had started looking more into our political process, and policies, and didn't like what I saw. After watching the Matrix and Godzilla "Wake Up" and "No Shelter" I started digging their message and got into the band. Now obviously I have also listened to and read other artists and authors because I listen to these bands, but whose to say that I wouldn't have come across Chomsky, Giroux, Zinn or MC5, Old 'Stones, Afrikka Bambatta, on my own accord? On that note, is it not silly now to think that these artists blindly "lead us" to supporting, or doing things, I think most people are smarter than that.
To me, its about the music......and thats what a lot of people tend to forget.
I persoanlly don't get into bands because they voted for the same candidate as me, or planted a bunch of trees somehwere...
at the end of the day if the music sucks i'm not interested
Oh how I wish i was at Rock the Bells. Zack dropped this bomb at the show!
"we need to rise up like the youth in Iraq and bring these fuckers to their knees"
And he said the band and he refuse to back down from calling for Bush to be tried and hung
There are very few people I agree with more in the world than Zack
Its a question of what we as a generation decide to do. Are we willing to graduate, get married have kids, buy our white houses and white picket fences. Or are we going to refuse that, and say "hey thats not how it works"
Bush is a murderer and killer and a war criminal.
And the only way to stop the goddamn war, isnt to go gaga for Obama or Hillary. They aint gonna end it folks.
As Ben Harper said "there are two ways things change. 1)people say "hey I aint going to stand for you putting your boots on my chest any more, and rising up or 2) manhattan being submerged in water due to global warming, or a similar crazy event. And he further stated, its past time for reform.
We need to rise up. Rise! RISE! This system doesnt give a crap about you. And if you think Obama and hilary give a damn about you you must be high on meth.
RISE!
Rise and then what? like is there a better system to be put into place? all of us that have to live in the aftermath of the "revolution" are gonna have some serious hard times in front yeah? maybe create a better world for future generations.........but what about the anarchy that would immediatly follow?
I certainly don't think the music sucks, in fact, what they sing about, and how they perform it is what makes me like both Rage and PJ. I just happened to get interested in them b/c I liked their politics in the first place. Heck I even gave the Dixie Chicks, and other bands of the sort a shot...some I have stuck with and others I haven't - that's when the music comes into play. I refuse to listen to Lynard Skynard (even though Sweet Home Alabama is a well performed song), because I'm not interested in promoted Southern White Supremacy through my music. My main point was that I don't take what Eddie or Zach say/sing to heart b/c I blindly follow them, but since I got into them for their political views in the first place I basically already agree with most of what they are writing/singing/performing, and when they say something I really like I will argue for them.
I refuse to listen to Lynard Skynard (even though Sweet Home Alabama is a well performed song), because I'm not interested in promoted Southern White Supremacy through my music.
You really don't have a clue about that band........do you? Let's see......"Saturday Night Special" is an anti-gun violence song...."That Smell" is anti-addiction (both drugs and alcohol)....."Sweet Home Alabama" is just answering Neil Young's "Southern Man" and "Alabama", explaining that not everyone in the South had a set of white sheets with eye-holes in them...."The Ballad of Curtis Low" is an homage to a local black man who taught one of the boys to play the guitar.....real white supremacy in action there. :rolleyes:
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
You really don't have a clue about that band........do you? Let's see......"Saturday Night Special" is an anti-gun violence song...."That Smell" is anti-addiction (both drugs and alcohol)....."Sweet Home Alabama" is just answering Neil Young's "Southern Man" and "Alabama", explaining that not everyone in the South had a set of white sheets with eye-holes in them...."The Ballad of Curtis Low" is an homage to a local black man who taught one of the boys to play the guitar.....real white supremacy in action there. :rolleyes:
Two things...1. Neil Young definitely understood that not everyone in Alabama was like that ("You've got a wheel in the ditch, and a wheel on the track") .... "in Birmingham they love the govenor...boom...boom...boom" and "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscious bother you" are two lines that could quite easily be used to contest your notion of it. Further, as Green Day said on their little VH1 number, "once the song is out in public you lose the power to shape the meaning on your own", and if you look at how Skynard fans react to this song, especially in old videos you will not think it's such a progressive song - flying the southern battle cross and all that jazz.
Two things...1. Neil Young definitely understood that not everyone in Alabama was like that ("You've got a wheel in the ditch, and a wheel on the track") .... "in Birmingham they love the govenor...boom...boom...boom" and "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscious bother you" are two lines that could quite easily be used to contest your notion of it. Further, as Green Day said on their little VH1 number, "once the song is out in public you lose the power to shape the meaning on your own", and if you look at how Skynard fans react to this song, especially in old videos you will not think it's such a progressive song - flying the southern battle cross and all that jazz.
The problems is with your argument about Birmingham loving the governor is that he never carried the county in which Birmingham is located in any of the elections that he won, so Birmingham did not really love him.....and he felt the same way about the city & county.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
That's bs. First of all, ratm never suggested killing innocent people. And they would be hypocrites if they faked their anger/rage against the current system just to win a little more money.
I'm still wondering how do you doubt their anger isn't real?
Some said (not necessarily you) that they reunited now to jumb on the antiwar/bush bandwagon to make some money. Why can't they be genuinely pissed off like many of their fans?
And yes they have money (though much much less than pj since this is the example that is used) and... they even were signed on a major. Does this make their message less accurate? They are not happy with something and express that frustration.
The fact that Zack isn't currently serving lifetime in prison for killing the assistant director of a corporation doesn't affect the honesty of his message, he believes bush is a criminal (and he isn't alone) and that he shoud have a death sentence a la Saddam. I think he believes it => he is honest about his message.
Only fair in his view, and I heard the same by non musician as well but they weren't asked to sacrifice their lives to prove they really really meant what they were saying.
he encouraged people to rise up like iraqi insurgents. iraqi insurgents murder innocent people on a daily basis. thus, telling his audience to emulate them is advocating senseless and reckless violence.
You really don't have a clue about that band........do you? Let's see......"Saturday Night Special" is an anti-gun violence song...."That Smell" is anti-addiction (both drugs and alcohol)....."Sweet Home Alabama" is just answering Neil Young's "Southern Man" and "Alabama", explaining that not everyone in the South had a set of white sheets with eye-holes in them...."The Ballad of Curtis Low" is an homage to a local black man who taught one of the boys to play the guitar.....real white supremacy in action there. :rolleyes:
no shit. i read that and wondered if im listening to the right lynyrd skynyrd. im trying very hard to recall their big KKK anthem... it's not coming to me...
Two things...1. Neil Young definitely understood that not everyone in Alabama was like that ("You've got a wheel in the ditch, and a wheel on the track") .... "in Birmingham they love the govenor...boom...boom...boom" and "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscious bother you" are two lines that could quite easily be used to contest your notion of it. Further, as Green Day said on their little VH1 number, "once the song is out in public you lose the power to shape the meaning on your own", and if you look at how Skynard fans react to this song, especially in old videos you will not think it's such a progressive song - flying the southern battle cross and all that jazz.
you're right... 2 lines in their entire catalogue clearly makes them white supremacists. my bad.
let's play a game, let's cherry pick as many lines as we can to make bands racist.
i think pearl jam are fundamentalist christians... they have a song about "let's call in an angel." clearly, they hate homos and everyone else and want to establish a theocracy in preparation for the end times.
you're right... 2 lines in their entire catalogue clearly makes them white supremacists. my bad.
let's play a game, let's cherry pick as many lines as we can to make bands racist.
i think pearl jam are fundamentalist christians... they have a song about "let's call in an angel." clearly, they hate homos and everyone else and want to establish a theocracy in preparation for the end times.
this logic is fun
while it is arguable that lynard skynard is/is not a band of white supremacists (having the southern battle cross as part of your logo does help my argument a bit), there is clearly no denying that the way the song has been perceived and celebrated, especially in its early incarnations, clearly celebrated a White South...it's really not even close. Go on youtube and watch it, you'll see a bunch of white people flying the southern battle flag (which during that time and before was about the preservation of segregation in the south ... this is quite clear).
Now, we can surely play this game with Pearl Jam, however they have often come out against racism, sexism, etc. and yet I have read people on threads here saying that as a black fan had a white male sing "Not for you" to them in reference to the idea that Pearl Jam is not for them. Is this the same as Lynard Skynard fans flying the southern battle flag? I suppose to a degree, but the way "Not For You" and "Sweet Home Alabama" have been used by widespread audiences is not the same, at least from what I have seen.
while it is arguable that lynard skynard is/is not a band of white supremacists (having the southern battle cross as part of your logo does help my argument a bit), there is clearly no denying that the way the song has been perceived and celebrated, especially in its early incarnations, clearly celebrated a White South...it's really not even close. Go on youtube and watch it, you'll see a bunch of white people flying the southern battle flag (which during that time and before was about the preservation of segregation in the south ... this is quite clear).
Now, we can surely play this game with Pearl Jam, however they have often come out against racism, sexism, etc. and yet I have read people on threads here saying that as a black fan had a white male sing "Not for you" to them in reference to the idea that Pearl Jam is not for them. Is this the same as Lynard Skynard fans flying the southern battle flag? I suppose to a degree, but the way "Not For You" and "Sweet Home Alabama" have been used by widespread audiences is not the same, at least from what I have seen.
God, you are so ignorant about Lynyrd Skynyrd, and the dichotomy of southern pride versus the racist connotation of some of the confederate symbols (not to mention irony as a poetic device in songs), that I find it difficult to take your stance on any issue seriously. I believe you must be born and raised in the south to truly understand that there is a unique culture and heritage that we as southerners are intensely proud of, while being torn by the ugliness that stains the legacy. But back on topic...Zach De La Rocha is still spouting ill-conceived rhetoric, which frankly makes him look hypocritical, blind, or just plain stupid.
while it is arguable that lynard skynard is/is not a band of white supremacists (having the southern battle cross as part of your logo does help my argument a bit), there is clearly no denying that the way the song has been perceived and celebrated, especially in its early incarnations, clearly celebrated a White South...it's really not even close. Go on youtube and watch it, you'll see a bunch of white people flying the southern battle flag (which during that time and before was about the preservation of segregation in the south ... this is quite clear).
Now, we can surely play this game with Pearl Jam, however they have often come out against racism, sexism, etc. and yet I have read people on threads here saying that as a black fan had a white male sing "Not for you" to them in reference to the idea that Pearl Jam is not for them. Is this the same as Lynard Skynard fans flying the southern battle flag? I suppose to a degree, but the way "Not For You" and "Sweet Home Alabama" have been used by widespread audiences is not the same, at least from what I have seen.
wow....you are really talking out of your ass on this issue
I would try to explain it, but tybird, soulsinging, and yieldtome have done a good job already and there's no need to rehash what they've already posted.
while it is arguable that lynard skynard is/is not a band of white supremacists (having the southern battle cross as part of your logo does help my argument a bit), there is clearly no denying that the way the song has been perceived and celebrated, especially in its early incarnations, clearly celebrated a White South...it's really not even close. Go on youtube and watch it, you'll see a bunch of white people flying the southern battle flag (which during that time and before was about the preservation of segregation in the south ... this is quite clear).
Now, we can surely play this game with Pearl Jam, however they have often come out against racism, sexism, etc. and yet I have read people on threads here saying that as a black fan had a white male sing "Not for you" to them in reference to the idea that Pearl Jam is not for them. Is this the same as Lynard Skynard fans flying the southern battle flag? I suppose to a degree, but the way "Not For You" and "Sweet Home Alabama" have been used by widespread audiences is not the same, at least from what I have seen.
did you see the youtube video posted on here recently that sued do the evolution to imply that blacks were inferior? does the fan reaction make the band racist? just becos a segment of the lynyrd skynyrd audience might be racist and respond to the songs thus does not make the band white supremacists. much as i think it's stupid to wave the confederate flag, i understand that it's not about racism to southerners. the song is about loving their home state despite its flaws. in fact, you misquoted the lyrics dude: "in birmingham they love the governor, boo hoo hoo, now we all did what we could do." hardly sounds like a white supremacist statement to me. sounds more like a "we fucked up, but let's put it behind it and stop using it to justify our prejudice against all southerners as ignorant racists."
the reason lynyrd skynyrd fans show up like that is becos skynyrd is their band. they're one of the only bands to play southern rock for and by southerners. they sound southern, they have the influences. it's like all the goths turning up at marilyn manson shows. dyou assume all manson fans are satan-worshipping evildoers? no, it's just a community that grew up around the band. all skynyrd is is a rallying point... this is our band, our heritage, and our music. it's got nothing to do with racism and everything to do community.
in fact, if you look closer, skynyrd was very active in deconstructing the southern machismo. plenty of songs were written against that gun-slinging good ole boy lifestyle... songs that deplored the careless violence and love of fighting. if a large part of their audience doesnt get that, it's no more their fault than it is pearl jam's fault that 75% of the pearl at a pearl jam concert in 92 singing along to jeremy were the same kind of jock fratboys that caused the tragedy inspiring the song.
Oh how I wish i was at Rock the Bells. Zack dropped this bomb at the show!
"we need to rise up like the youth in Iraq and bring these fuckers to their knees"
And he said the band and he refuse to back down from calling for Bush to be tried and hung
There are very few people I agree with more in the world than Zack
Its a question of what we as a generation decide to do. Are we willing to graduate, get married have kids, buy our white houses and white picket fences. Or are we going to refuse that, and say "hey thats not how it works"
Bush is a murderer and killer and a war criminal.
And the only way to stop the goddamn war, isnt to go gaga for Obama or Hillary. They aint gonna end it folks.
As Ben Harper said "there are two ways things change. 1)people say "hey I aint going to stand for you putting your boots on my chest any more, and rising up or 2) manhattan being submerged in water due to global warming, or a similar crazy event. And he further stated, its past time for reform.
We need to rise up. Rise! RISE! This system doesnt give a crap about you. And if you think Obama and hilary give a damn about you you must be high on meth.
Oh how I wish i was at Rock the Bells. Zack dropped this bomb at the show!
"we need to rise up like the youth in Iraq and bring these fuckers to their knees"
And he said the band and he refuse to back down from calling for Bush to be tried and hung
There are very few people I agree with more in the world than Zack
Its a question of what we as a generation decide to do. Are we willing to graduate, get married have kids, buy our white houses and white picket fences. Or are we going to refuse that, and say "hey thats not how it works"
Bush is a murderer and killer and a war criminal.
And the only way to stop the goddamn war, isnt to go gaga for Obama or Hillary. They aint gonna end it folks.
As Ben Harper said "there are two ways things change. 1)people say "hey I aint going to stand for you putting your boots on my chest any more, and rising up or 2) manhattan being submerged in water due to global warming, or a similar crazy event. And he further stated, its past time for reform.
We need to rise up. Rise! RISE! This system doesnt give a crap about you. And if you think Obama and hilary give a damn about you you must be high on meth.
RISE!
Great post, we need this kind of message and music
Comments
That's bs. First of all, ratm never suggested killing innocent people. And they would be hypocrites if they faked their anger/rage against the current system just to win a little more money.
I'm still wondering how do you doubt their anger isn't real?
Some said (not necessarily you) that they reunited now to jumb on the antiwar/bush bandwagon to make some money. Why can't they be genuinely pissed off like many of their fans?
And yes they have money (though much much less than pj since this is the example that is used) and... they even were signed on a major. Does this make their message less accurate? They are not happy with something and express that frustration.
The fact that Zack isn't currently serving lifetime in prison for killing the assistant director of a corporation doesn't affect the honesty of his message, he believes bush is a criminal (and he isn't alone) and that he shoud have a death sentence a la Saddam. I think he believes it => he is honest about his message.
Only fair in his view, and I heard the same by non musician as well but they weren't asked to sacrifice their lives to prove they really really meant what they were saying.
I disagree a lot with the US' current foreign policy. But if there's a thing I find more annoying than Dubya are those persons that think the US is root of all that's evil and wrong with this world. You mentioned my region, Latin America, and I know you mean well, you have good intentions, but you fail to see that your way of thinking is just the other side of the coin. You, like Bush and the Neocons, are thinking your country is allmighty and capable of interfering wherever and whenever it wants, the only difference is that you think the US do it to fuck up countries, whereas Bush is "spreading freedom and democracy". Well I don't see a difference between this way of thinking and Bush Jr. thinking, you know why? Because it considers us poor souls from the Third World as morons or robots with no will whatsoever. I'm not neglecting US (and the USSR) influence during the 70's. But, you really think that everything that happened during that era was due to the sole intervention of the CIA? Come on! Give us some credits, allow us to own our fuckups!! You mentioned Chile. Well, I am Chilean and besides the fact that all my family was in Chile, I've studied a lot and read a lot about those years, I also read a lot about Argentina's politics and I'll tell you this, which is an almost unanimous consensus among political analysts, sociologists and among everybody. The Coup d'Etat carried out by Pinochet (Chile) was succesful mainly because the people, the citizens from both countries, were OK with it. In Chile people really were desperate and extremely unhappy with Allende's government. A few days prior to the Coup his government was declared unconstitutional by Congress. People would go to military facilities and beg them for an uprising rise. Of course, nobody knew how bloody Pinochet's regime would be. My point is: even though there's US (and European) influence in our region we're the guilty ones for our history and if we don't understand that we'll never change it.
About Cuba, come on! You can't be serious about the elections, everybody knows it is a huge facade!
Peace from Latin America
Caterina
Caterina, I don't disagree with your statement. Clearly, you can't start a revolution without the people behind it...however, you also have to have the money, and power to do it - that's where the US comes in. Imagine for a second then if someone who was really rich, and didn't like the US government gave our poor, working-class soldiers millions of dollars, food, and support to overthrow our American government ... similar things could happen. If you don't like Cuba, please look at any number of governments around the world who have had leaders legally elected, only to have army's supported by US money destroy those countries (Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq (years ago), Iran, Dominican Republic, etc.). Finally Cuba's elections are no more a facade than American elecions (it's pretty accepted that Bush didn't win in 2000, if not, 2004).
You take the rantings and posturing of musicians far too seriously. Why do you have all these romatic notions towards a rap artist's pleading for a violent revolution?
Can you not form your alligences and world views based on things other thank rock musicians who can't put their money where their mouth is but spout rhetoric indescriminantly anyway?
Its a fucking rock band dude.......relax.......and listen to the music. If you have to crack open a bio of your little buddy Che while you have your headphones on listening to MUSIC so as you don't convulse.......please do so
The French Revolution... oh yeah, that's right, hundreds were beheaded and Napoleon came to power leading to the worst war in European history up to that point.
The Russian Revolution... oh yeah, that's right, Stalin came to power and was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his own citizens.
The Chinese Revolution... oh yeah, that's right, they have a regime far more corrupt and abusive than America's and their people have no right to even criticize their government and their lives are micromanaged by a few Communist Party bigwigs in Beijin.
So we need to rise like the youth of Iraq? We should start beheading people in our own country? We should destroy any sense of security in our own country? Hey, that's a brilliant idea! Let's destabilize our country and its government, which will, as history proves (I'm able to provide multiple examples upon request), lead to a brutal dictatorship like Germany in the 1930s and 1940s or complete anarchy like we see in Somalia.
The problem with all this extremist talk of violent revolution is that those who support the revolution make the same exact mistake Bush made in Iraq. They think their idea is great without thinking of the consequences of such a scenario. Yeah, Bush is a problem, but destabilizing our country through violent revolution would cause the development of problems much worse than our country faces today.
I agree that it sucks that America involves itself too much in other countries' business. The problem is in at least some of those cases, if we didn't get involved, the Soviets would have. That fact alone reduced some of those cases to having either a Soviet supported or American supported government in those countries. Unfortunately, our leaders didn't have the foresight at the time to realize this shit would come back and bite us in the ass in the future.
Bush won in the Electoral College in both elections, so yes, unfortunately (or fortunately, I don't think Gore or Kerry could have done much better) he did win. The Electoral College exists for a reason (although it does need reform).
Tell that to teh countries who suffered 50 yrs of Soviet occupation.
You are probably too young to remember that teh Berlin Wall ever even existed.
To me, its about the music......and thats what a lot of people tend to forget.
I persoanlly don't get into bands because they voted for the same candidate as me, or planted a bunch of trees somehwere...
at the end of the day if the music sucks i'm not interested
Rise and then what? like is there a better system to be put into place? all of us that have to live in the aftermath of the "revolution" are gonna have some serious hard times in front yeah? maybe create a better world for future generations.........but what about the anarchy that would immediatly follow?
can global warming even be stopped?
he encouraged people to rise up like iraqi insurgents. iraqi insurgents murder innocent people on a daily basis. thus, telling his audience to emulate them is advocating senseless and reckless violence.
no shit. i read that and wondered if im listening to the right lynyrd skynyrd. im trying very hard to recall their big KKK anthem... it's not coming to me...
you're right... 2 lines in their entire catalogue clearly makes them white supremacists. my bad.
let's play a game, let's cherry pick as many lines as we can to make bands racist.
i think pearl jam are fundamentalist christians... they have a song about "let's call in an angel." clearly, they hate homos and everyone else and want to establish a theocracy in preparation for the end times.
this logic is fun
while it is arguable that lynard skynard is/is not a band of white supremacists (having the southern battle cross as part of your logo does help my argument a bit), there is clearly no denying that the way the song has been perceived and celebrated, especially in its early incarnations, clearly celebrated a White South...it's really not even close. Go on youtube and watch it, you'll see a bunch of white people flying the southern battle flag (which during that time and before was about the preservation of segregation in the south ... this is quite clear).
Now, we can surely play this game with Pearl Jam, however they have often come out against racism, sexism, etc. and yet I have read people on threads here saying that as a black fan had a white male sing "Not for you" to them in reference to the idea that Pearl Jam is not for them. Is this the same as Lynard Skynard fans flying the southern battle flag? I suppose to a degree, but the way "Not For You" and "Sweet Home Alabama" have been used by widespread audiences is not the same, at least from what I have seen.
God, you are so ignorant about Lynyrd Skynyrd, and the dichotomy of southern pride versus the racist connotation of some of the confederate symbols (not to mention irony as a poetic device in songs), that I find it difficult to take your stance on any issue seriously. I believe you must be born and raised in the south to truly understand that there is a unique culture and heritage that we as southerners are intensely proud of, while being torn by the ugliness that stains the legacy. But back on topic...Zach De La Rocha is still spouting ill-conceived rhetoric, which frankly makes him look hypocritical, blind, or just plain stupid.
RISE!
................RISE!
haha
I would try to explain it, but tybird, soulsinging, and yieldtome have done a good job already and there's no need to rehash what they've already posted.
did you see the youtube video posted on here recently that sued do the evolution to imply that blacks were inferior? does the fan reaction make the band racist? just becos a segment of the lynyrd skynyrd audience might be racist and respond to the songs thus does not make the band white supremacists. much as i think it's stupid to wave the confederate flag, i understand that it's not about racism to southerners. the song is about loving their home state despite its flaws. in fact, you misquoted the lyrics dude: "in birmingham they love the governor, boo hoo hoo, now we all did what we could do." hardly sounds like a white supremacist statement to me. sounds more like a "we fucked up, but let's put it behind it and stop using it to justify our prejudice against all southerners as ignorant racists."
the reason lynyrd skynyrd fans show up like that is becos skynyrd is their band. they're one of the only bands to play southern rock for and by southerners. they sound southern, they have the influences. it's like all the goths turning up at marilyn manson shows. dyou assume all manson fans are satan-worshipping evildoers? no, it's just a community that grew up around the band. all skynyrd is is a rallying point... this is our band, our heritage, and our music. it's got nothing to do with racism and everything to do community.
in fact, if you look closer, skynyrd was very active in deconstructing the southern machismo. plenty of songs were written against that gun-slinging good ole boy lifestyle... songs that deplored the careless violence and love of fighting. if a large part of their audience doesnt get that, it's no more their fault than it is pearl jam's fault that 75% of the pearl at a pearl jam concert in 92 singing along to jeremy were the same kind of jock fratboys that caused the tragedy inspiring the song.
no more shows
zach doesnt know shit about the world, bono doesnt know shit..
i dont know shit
This is the only relevant post here. Take the revolutionary talk into 'a moving train' and keep it clean.
Great post, we need this kind of message and music