-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 06, 2019, 01:23:29 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Pet Sounds and Race
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Pet Sounds and Race  (Read 32185 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Cincinnati Kid
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 800



View Profile
« Reply #225 on: January 06, 2017, 12:44:03 PM »

Emily, I think we all understand what you are saying, but what are we supposed to conclude in regards to the institutional racism that existed then and still exists today in some forms?  
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4929



View Profile
« Reply #226 on: January 06, 2017, 12:47:14 PM »

I think there's a bigger problem with people hearing things that aren't there. But whatever.

But you know, that cuts both ways, right? With regards to some people hearing/interpreting some things as sexist/racist, when in fact that's not always the case either.
I edited above before I saw this. I think this is a false equivalence. I think that when most people talk about racism and misogyny, they are talking about cultural functions, unless they are talking about specific outright examples. Not always- and in that case they should be called out and that's fine. The problem is that some people can't grapple, most often I guess for psychological reasons, with the fact that those things are existing cultural functions, so they react all touchy.

But like I said... I'm not denying that the 1960s were a time when it benefited bands to be white when marketed to suburban young white kids, and that black performers probably got shafted in untold ways that their white counterparts didn't. I'm NOT one of those people who denies those things... so I would counter and say that I *can* in fact grapple with the idea that there was institutional stuff going on which benefited the band.

Have I said something which makes you think I don't believe that institutional racism was/is a thing? I just wanna know what people like myself have to prove to make it known that we think racism and institutional racism sucks, and that we truly want it to go the way of the dodo. I mean, not everyone wants that, but I certainly do!

Myself, I just happen to think that the band was really an outlet for escapism and everyday carefree topics - yet of course Brian did begin to weave socially conscious lyrics, such as on SMiLE, and Mike's clunky yet well intended Student Demonstration Time - so I don't really know what the point you are tying to make is. Nor do I really understand what authors like the Pet Sounds article guy were trying to say either. I tend to think that article is probably part of a concerted effort to knock the band down a few pegs from being as revered as they are.

If I confidently say "the band surely inadvertently benefited from whatever ways that they - and other such all-white groups of the time - didn't have to deal with prejudice, racist record executives, and how the industry probably was skewed to benefit white folks, etc"... all things I truly believe... and leave it at that, does that make my views align with yours? Or do you believe I am still missing something, and/or not grappling fully with a particular concept?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 12:58:51 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #227 on: January 06, 2017, 12:58:39 PM »

Can I offer a thought that others may or may not find useful (or even correct)? I can!? Oh good!

I think the word "racism" in "institutional racism" might trip people up with respect to handling the idea. We usually use the term for individual and often conscious, nasty beliefs and behavior. It is despicable and I don't think anyone is arguing that.

When I think of institutional racism, I think of it apart from individuals' conscious beliefs and actions, and more a subconscious racial environment (which does benefit or harm some groups based on race). It isn't finger-pointing, prosecuting, reparations-demanding, but just trying to step out of ourselves to see either an objective or at least a different subjective reality with respect to race. So thinking of the BBs or anyone in the context of institutional racism isn't calling the BBs racist: it's just an interesting examination.

I think the two uses of "racism" are very different and warrant different responses. Maybe we'd be better off if there were another term for institutional racism.

Or maybe my approach is stupid and you're glad this post ends ... NOW!!
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #228 on: January 06, 2017, 01:02:15 PM »

Emily, I think we all understand what you are saying, but what are we supposed to conclude in regards to the institutional racism that existed then and still exists today in some forms?  
There isn't a simple answer to this. I wouldn't say that there's any one thing that people are supposed to conclude. Simply, people should think about it and how it affects things and try in their small space to correct for it.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #229 on: January 06, 2017, 01:04:18 PM »

I think there's a bigger problem with people hearing things that aren't there. But whatever.

But you know, that cuts both ways, right? With regards to some people hearing/interpreting some things as sexist/racist, when in fact that's not always the case either.
I edited above before I saw this. I think this is a false equivalence. I think that when most people talk about racism and misogyny, they are talking about cultural functions, unless they are talking about specific outright examples. Not always- and in that case they should be called out and that's fine. The problem is that some people can't grapple, most often I guess for psychological reasons, with the fact that those things are existing cultural functions, so they react all touchy.

But like I said... I'm not denying that the 1960s were a time when it benefited bands to be white when marketed to suburban young white kids, and that black performers probably got shafted in untold ways that their white counterparts didn't. I'm NOT one of those people who denies those things... so I would counter and say that I *can* in fact grapple with the idea that there was institutional stuff going on which benefited the band.

Have I said something which makes you think I don't believe that institutional racism was/is a thing? I just wanna know what people like myself have to prove to make it known that we think racism and institutional racism sucks, and that we truly want it to go the way of the dodo. I mean, not everyone wants that, but I certainly do!

Myself, I just happen to think that the band was really an outlet for escapism and everyday carefree topics - yet of course Brian did begin to weave socially conscious lyrics, such as on SMiLE, and Mike's clunky yet well intended Student Demonstration Time - so I don't really know what the point you are tying to make is. Nor do I really understand what authors like the Pet Sounds article guy were trying to say either. I tend to think that article is probably part of a concerted effort to knock the band down a few pegs from being as revered as they are.

If I confidently say "the band surely inadvertently benefited from whatever ways that they - and other such all-white groups of the time - didn't have to deal with prejudice, racist record executives, and how the industry probably was skewed to benefit white folks, etc"... all things I truly believe... and leave it at that, does that make my views align with yours? Or do you believe I am still missing something, and/or not grappling fully with a particular concept?
You don't have to prove anything. Just don't get defensive when people talk about racism. Don't assume they are calling. You or your band racist. And don't tell them they shouldn't talk about racism because some people don't like it when people talk about racism.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #230 on: January 06, 2017, 01:04:47 PM »

Can I offer a thought that others may or may not find useful (or even correct)? I can!? Oh good!

I think the word "racism" in "institutional racism" might trip people up with respect to handling the idea. We usually use the term for individual and often conscious, nasty beliefs and behavior. It is despicable and I don't think anyone is arguing that.

When I think of institutional racism, I think of it apart from individuals' conscious beliefs and actions, and more a subconscious racial environment (which does benefit or harm some groups based on race). It isn't finger-pointing, prosecuting, reparations-demanding, but just trying to step out of ourselves to see either an objective or at least a different subjective reality with respect to race. So thinking of the BBs or anyone in the context of institutional racism isn't calling the BBs racist: it's just an interesting examination.

I think the two uses of "racism" are very different and warrant different responses. Maybe we'd be better off if there were another term for institutional racism.

Or maybe my approach is stupid and you're glad this post ends ... NOW!!
Yay. Good approach.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4929



View Profile
« Reply #231 on: January 06, 2017, 01:21:52 PM »

I think there's a bigger problem with people hearing things that aren't there. But whatever.

But you know, that cuts both ways, right? With regards to some people hearing/interpreting some things as sexist/racist, when in fact that's not always the case either.
I edited above before I saw this. I think this is a false equivalence. I think that when most people talk about racism and misogyny, they are talking about cultural functions, unless they are talking about specific outright examples. Not always- and in that case they should be called out and that's fine. The problem is that some people can't grapple, most often I guess for psychological reasons, with the fact that those things are existing cultural functions, so they react all touchy.

But like I said... I'm not denying that the 1960s were a time when it benefited bands to be white when marketed to suburban young white kids, and that black performers probably got shafted in untold ways that their white counterparts didn't. I'm NOT one of those people who denies those things... so I would counter and say that I *can* in fact grapple with the idea that there was institutional stuff going on which benefited the band.

Have I said something which makes you think I don't believe that institutional racism was/is a thing? I just wanna know what people like myself have to prove to make it known that we think racism and institutional racism sucks, and that we truly want it to go the way of the dodo. I mean, not everyone wants that, but I certainly do!

Myself, I just happen to think that the band was really an outlet for escapism and everyday carefree topics - yet of course Brian did begin to weave socially conscious lyrics, such as on SMiLE, and Mike's clunky yet well intended Student Demonstration Time - so I don't really know what the point you are tying to make is. Nor do I really understand what authors like the Pet Sounds article guy were trying to say either. I tend to think that article is probably part of a concerted effort to knock the band down a few pegs from being as revered as they are.

If I confidently say "the band surely inadvertently benefited from whatever ways that they - and other such all-white groups of the time - didn't have to deal with prejudice, racist record executives, and how the industry probably was skewed to benefit white folks, etc"... all things I truly believe... and leave it at that, does that make my views align with yours? Or do you believe I am still missing something, and/or not grappling fully with a particular concept?
You don't have to prove anything. Just don't get defensive when people talk about racism. Don't assume they are calling. You or your band racist. And don't tell them they shouldn't talk about racism because some people don't like it when people talk about racism.

Like I said, it's all about context, the manner in which something is brought up, and interpretation. The fact of the matter is that I'm certain there are plenty of people who (again, Trump aside) have probably concluded that the band is uncool (in a "this is sorta racist and culturally unacceptable" sort of way) as a result of articles like the Pet Sounds article. And again, it pains me to think about how much further this line of thinking will go as a result of Mike Edward Scissorhands Love.

Just please for a moment consider the fact that authors who make such accusations should think about readers walking away with that type of impression, and should choose their words carefully to avoid such (unless of course that's their goal, in which case I think their goal sucks). Kind of how I try to choose my words carefully to avoid using the term "girl" in a previous thread with you in discussing a teenaged female (even though I mean nothing bad by it, I completely agree that it's antiquated, and can be interpreted in a pejorative way, so I happily and willingly have tried to dial it out of my vocabulary). People have a responsibility, especially in today's day and age, where people often communicate on the internet without face-to-face contact (and thus, without the benefit of facial expressions to better understand what someone might truly mean from their statement), to not be needlessly divisive about sensitive topics. They can still be discussed, of course. It's why I personally often text with emojis, and don't often end texts with a period. Not asking you, the author of the Pet Sounds article, or anyone to throw "happy" emojis into a discussion of institutional racism, just making an analogy that there are ways and things that can be said that better help the conversation be productive, as opposed to the opposite.

"Racism" is an UGLY term, and it's VERY easy for people to latch onto it and throw that label undeservedly onto things like tying it somehow to Pet Sounds. People have a responsibility to not be inciting and creating unfair labels for others. And no, I am NOT in any way saying that people should be afraid of discussing race, privilege, or how to fix societal problems. I too want to be solution-minded. I'm just saying that there are things that people can do/say, like cushioning a potentially volatile statement with a disclaimer, that can *help* the reader not feel attacked (or feel their favorite band is being attacked) in a needless, unfair way.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 01:30:22 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #232 on: January 06, 2017, 01:30:03 PM »

But the author didn't make that accusation. The fault is on the part of the stupid "if you're talking about racism you're being mean or reprssive or in some way doing something horrible!" zeitgeist. And to silence people talking about racism because some people are trying to silence people talking about racism is to be one of the people trying to silence people talking about racism.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4929



View Profile
« Reply #233 on: January 06, 2017, 01:31:02 PM »

But the author didn't make that accusation. The fault is on the part of the stupid "if you're talking about racism you're being mean or reprssive or in some way doing something horrible!" zeitgeist. And to silence people talking about racism because some people are trying to silence people talking about racism is to be one of the people trying to silence people talking about racism.

I very much figured that you might say "it's the fault of the reader", but *part* of it has to be on the author too. Communication is a two-way street. I don't condone silencing, just being more concerned about trying to minimize misinterpretation, if in fact that is what is happening.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 01:34:52 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #234 on: January 06, 2017, 01:34:04 PM »

That's a nice platitude, but sometimes one person is in the wrong and the other is in the right.
Logged
Justin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2240



View Profile
« Reply #235 on: January 06, 2017, 01:40:42 PM »

I think that many people react negatively to anyone ever saying anything about racism

Correct but only when racism is manipulated into the conversation as it is in this discussion.

I'm not going to edit myself pointing out racism and misogyny because some people are unable to grapple with reality.

Just don't get defensive when people talk about racism. Don't assume they are calling. You or your band racist. And don't tell them they shouldn't talk about racism because some people don't like it when people talk about racism.

These are very patronizing things to say.  

In the same vein:  don't assume people who question you are trying to "edit/silence" you.  It's a shame that discourse is labeled now as an act of aggression or intimidation.  

I agree with the root of your position but I take issue with your conclusions.  I wish you dialed down on the hyperbole and took a more sensitive approach to such a sensitive topic.  

Saying now that the Beach Boys music and all of Motown, Stax (and basically all music from this and any period before or following) is rooted in institutional racism is a statement that is just downright dishonest and once again, intellectually irresponsible.  Anyone who proudly makes those statements is most likely not looking for a discussion.  So then, that's that.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4929



View Profile
« Reply #236 on: January 06, 2017, 01:41:41 PM »

That's a nice platitude, but sometimes one person is in the wrong and the other is in the right.

In another thread, when we were having a back-and-forth convo about the teenaged lady who protested Hillary, I consistently referred to her as a "young lady" or something to that effect, but one time I typed quickly without thinking and referred to her a "girl". I would hope that out of the many (every-single-time-but-once) that I had NOT called her "girl" you would have known that I didn't mean anything bad/pejorative by the fact that the archaic "girl" terminology stupidly slipped out just once, but you were very quick to pounce on it and say "don't call her a girl", as though suddenly I must mean it in a pejorative way when it probably should have been obvious that I didn't. So that's as much my fault for saying that word as it might be considered your fault for interpreting that I actually meant something bad from the term (based on my history of not using it before at all in that convo). Ultimately it's on me for typing it, I get that. Still, things are in the eye of the beholder, although I concede it's my responsibility to not use that language - even when I think someone would know I mean nothing bad by it.

It's easy for conversations to devolve when buttons are being pushed, and I just think that there are shades of grey, and ways in which people can converse without being needlessly hostile divisive, and without muzzling the author, but still getting the point across.  The internet has largely ruined our natural ability to communicate as humans face-to-face, and there are things that can be done to counteract that.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 01:43:07 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #237 on: January 06, 2017, 01:42:50 PM »

Let me ask you a question, CD. On a few occasions, you have asserted, correctly, that Trump has nominated people who have made homophobic statements and that he has mocked a disabled person (I notice that his strong record of misogynistic statements are less frequently raised). There are places on the internet where your statements would be flatly denied and would raise outrage. Would you be wrong to have made them?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 01:53:29 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #238 on: January 06, 2017, 01:46:20 PM »

Sorry. This is irritating me and I'm getting rude.
Deleted this comment.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 01:51:27 PM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #239 on: January 06, 2017, 01:50:02 PM »

Deleted
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 01:57:50 PM by Emily » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4929



View Profile
« Reply #240 on: January 06, 2017, 01:52:15 PM »

Let me ask you a question, CD. On a few occasions, you have asserted, correctly, that Trump has nominated people who
Have made homophobic statements and that he has mocked a disabled person (I notice that his strong record of misogynistic statements are less frequently raised). There are places on the internet where your statements would be flatly denied and would raise outrage. Would you be wrong to have made them?

Trump is a giant piece of sh*t, and his misogynistic statements horrify me as well (please don't for a moment think that they don't). If I have harped more on about mocking disabled people, it's probably because while some people defending him can perhaps try to "squirm" out of calling him trash for misogyny (saying that it's only a mere "interpretation"), there is NO way that anyone with their right mind can see him making fun of a disabled person's spasms and not outright puke. It's completely fucking indefensible.  I am just as disgusted with his treatment towards women, how Bannon calls lesbians "dikes", etc etc. Trust me, I have no shortage of outrage for how he talks about women.

Bottom line - you can't make fun of disabled people -blatantly on TV as a candidate - and then not apologize for it and still be considered not a piece of sh*t in my book. Ditto for Bannon. Ditto for Trump's "p*ssy" comment, etc etc etc.

So no, of course, I would not be wrong to have made the comments that I believe Trump is a giant ass.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #241 on: January 06, 2017, 01:57:14 PM »

So if you are right and they are wrong and they are only attacking your statements because they don't square with their socio-political sensitivities, you shouldn't be expected to refrain from making those statements?
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4929



View Profile
« Reply #242 on: January 06, 2017, 02:00:54 PM »

That's a nice platitude, but sometimes one person is in the wrong and the other is in the right.

In another thread, when we were having a back-and-forth convo about the teenaged lady who protested Hillary, I consistently referred to her as a "young lady" or something to that effect, but one time I typed quickly without thinking and referred to her a "girl". I would hope that out of the many (every-single-time-but-once) that I had NOT called her "girl" you would have known that I didn't mean anything bad/pejorative by the fact that the archaic "girl" terminology stupidly slipped out just once, but you were very quick to pounce on it and say "don't call her a girl", as though suddenly I must mean it in a pejorative way when it probably should have been obvious that I didn't. So that's as much my fault for saying that word as it might be considered your fault for interpreting that I actually meant something bad from the term (based on my history of not using it before at all in that convo). Ultimately it's on me for typing it, I get that. Still, things are in the eye of the beholder, although I concede it's my responsibility to not use that language - even when I think someone would know I mean nothing bad by it.

It's easy for conversations to devolve when buttons are being pushed, and I just think that there are shades of grey, and ways in which people can converse without being needlessly hostile divisive, and without muzzling the author, but still getting the point across.  The internet has largely ruined our natural ability to communicate as humans face-to-face, and there are things that can be done to counteract that.
The "young lady" was on my nerves too. And the constant references to her race.  I did not imply that you meant it in a period active way. That's your defensive inference.  I did not misinterpret it.

Side note: The ONLY reason I referenced her race is because she in all probability was particularly outraged at the "superpredator" comment as a result of her community being unfairly targeted due to race. I believe it was relevant to the point I was trying to make, just as you reference race/gender when you feel it is relevant to the point you are trying to make. I know plenty of folks of color who were also outraged about this specific "superpredator" issue, most specifically due to their experiences. Her race was likely a big part of why she was there, why she or people she knows may have been affected, etc.

For you to tell me "don't use that terminology" implies that you think that is a bad/pejorative way of my speaking about someone that is needlessly belittling in some way (or that it could be interpreted that way). Either way, you were and are right - it was a stupid word to use. It's understandable you had some negative reaction to it - even if you knew, or I would hope you would have known - that I meant nothing bad by using it. It bugged the sh*t out of you. And I don't fault you for that at all. But there could have been (and was) a better way to have phrased it.

I'm not being defensive about having used it - I think you were fine to point it out - but I don't get how you don't see the flipside of how in other incidents, people can talk in ways that are also problematic in their potential interpretation.

Anyway, the analogy and point being, there are ways in which things - like systemic racism - can be talked about without being as divisive as some people (however inadvertently) seem to be when talking about this band. Even saying something as simple as the sentence "Let me preface this statement by saying that I don't believe Brian Wilson has a racist bone in his body" in a discussion about the band and institutional racism in the 60s could probably help diffuse things.

I'm not saying nobody can write about institutional racism in the 60s and The BBs, just that the author should tread carefully and responsibly in such as topic. That's all.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 02:19:23 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4929



View Profile
« Reply #243 on: January 06, 2017, 02:06:40 PM »

So if you are right and they are wrong and they are only attacking your statements because they don't square with their socio-political sensitivities, you shouldn't be expected to refrain from making those statements?

I'm talking about something very clear cut and simple - Trump literally just months ago, on national TV, uses specific words, making specific mocking gestures... things that are NOT subject to interpretation, unless the person is truly naive and believes Trump when he claimed he wasn't mocking a disabled person, etc.

This is completely different than a complex issue which we are discussing, with all sorts of shades of grey, involving a group of numerous different individuals, society at large, etc etc. No relation whatsoever. Again, I am not calling for muzzling, just perhaps a better choice of words, more disclaimers, more giving of sh*ts to NOT just put this ALL on the reader, but for the writer to feel a personal responsibility to not have the reader walk away thinking the band should be knocked down several pegs in terms of respect, etc.

It's not hard. Somebody just has to give a f*** about it, that's all. If actually correcting some ills in society is the goal, a better tack might be to do things to reach out and gain more allies, as opposed to pushing people away who probably largely agree with 90% of the overall idea.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 02:12:20 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #244 on: January 06, 2017, 02:15:59 PM »

That's a nice platitude, but sometimes one person is in the wrong and the other is in the right.

In another thread, when we were having a back-and-forth convo about the teenaged lady who protested Hillary, I consistently referred to her as a "young lady" or something to that effect, but one time I typed quickly without thinking and referred to her a "girl". I would hope that out of the many (every-single-time-but-once) that I had NOT called her "girl" you would have known that I didn't mean anything bad/pejorative by the fact that the archaic "girl" terminology stupidly slipped out just once, but you were very quick to pounce on it and say "don't call her a girl", as though suddenly I must mean it in a pejorative way when it probably should have been obvious that I didn't. So that's as much my fault for saying that word as it might be considered your fault for interpreting that I actually meant something bad from the term (based on my history of not using it before at all in that convo). Ultimately it's on me for typing it, I get that. Still, things are in the eye of the beholder, although I concede it's my responsibility to not use that language - even when I think someone would know I mean nothing bad by it.

It's easy for conversations to devolve when buttons are being pushed, and I just think that there are shades of grey, and ways in which people can converse without being needlessly hostile divisive, and without muzzling the author, but still getting the point across.  The internet has largely ruined our natural ability to communicate as humans face-to-face, and there are things that can be done to counteract that.
The "young lady" was on my nerves too. And the constant references to her race.  I did not imply that you meant it in a period active way. That's your defensive inference.  I did not misinterpret it.

Side note: The ONLY reason I referenced her race is because she in all probability was particularly outraged at the "superpredator" comment as a result of her community being unfairly targeted due to race. I know plenty of folks of color who were, most specifically due to their experiences. Her race was likely a big part of why she was there, why she or people she knows may have been affected, etc.

For you to tell me (or for anyone to tell anyone) "don't use that terminology" implies that you believe that is a bad/pejorative way of my speaking about someone that is needlessly belittling in some way (or that it could be interpreted that way). Either way, you were and are right - it was a stupid word to use. It's understandable you had some negative reaction to it - even if you knew, or I would hope you would have known - that I meant nothing bad by using it. It bugged the sh*t out of you. And I don't fault you for that at all. But there could have been (and was) a better way to have phrased it.

Anyway, the analogy and point being, there are ways in which things - like systemic racism - can be talked about without being as divisive as some people (however inadvertently) seem to be when talking about this band. Even saying something as simple as the sentence "Let me preface this statement by saying that I don't believe Brian Wilson has a racist bone in his body" in a discussion about the band and institutional racism in the 60s could probably help diffuse things.

I'm not saying nobody can write about institutional racism in the 60s and The BBs, just that the author should tread carefully and responsibly in such as topic. That's all.
I didn't think you had a bad intent or were using the term or any term pejoratively. I assumed that you do not have the same concerns that I do about the impact of putting focus on the age, sex or color of a speaker when the speaker's statements can stand on their own.
I think that bending over backward to humor people who twist things out of context in order to shut down important topics that they find threatening is not a good idea. I think it plays into their agenda, which is not an agenda I support.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #245 on: January 06, 2017, 02:19:16 PM »

So if you are right and they are wrong and they are only attacking your statements because they don't square with their socio-political sensitivities, you shouldn't be expected to refrain from making those statements?

I'm talking about something very clear cut and simple - Trump literally just months ago, on national TV, uses specific words, making specific mocking gestures... things that are NOT subject to interpretation, unless the person is truly naive and believes Trump when he claimed he wasn't mocking a disabled person, etc.

This is completely different than a complex issue which we are discussing, with all sorts of shades of grey, involving a group of numerous different individuals, society at large, etc etc. No relation whatsoever. Again, I am not calling for muzzling, just perhaps a better choice of words, more disclaimers, more giving of sh*ts to NOT just put this ALL on the reader, but for the writer to feel a personal responsibility to not have the reader walk away thinking the band should be knocked down several pegs in terms of respect, etc.

It's not hard. Somebody just has to give a f*** about it, that's all. If actually correcting some ills in society is the goal, a better tack might be to do things to reach out and gain more allies, as opposed to pushing people away who probably largely agree with 90% of the overall idea.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly clear that the author of this article did not say that The Beach Boys were, as people, racists. That's every bit as clear to me as it is to you that Trump mocked that guy. And the people who believe Trump's dumb explanation are no more wrong than the people claiming this article called The Beach Boys racist.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4929



View Profile
« Reply #246 on: January 06, 2017, 02:25:20 PM »

So if you are right and they are wrong and they are only attacking your statements because they don't square with their socio-political sensitivities, you shouldn't be expected to refrain from making those statements?

I'm talking about something very clear cut and simple - Trump literally just months ago, on national TV, uses specific words, making specific mocking gestures... things that are NOT subject to interpretation, unless the person is truly naive and believes Trump when he claimed he wasn't mocking a disabled person, etc.

This is completely different than a complex issue which we are discussing, with all sorts of shades of grey, involving a group of numerous different individuals, society at large, etc etc. No relation whatsoever. Again, I am not calling for muzzling, just perhaps a better choice of words, more disclaimers, more giving of sh*ts to NOT just put this ALL on the reader, but for the writer to feel a personal responsibility to not have the reader walk away thinking the band should be knocked down several pegs in terms of respect, etc.

It's not hard. Somebody just has to give a f*** about it, that's all. If actually correcting some ills in society is the goal, a better tack might be to do things to reach out and gain more allies, as opposed to pushing people away who probably largely agree with 90% of the overall idea.
I disagree. I think it's perfectly clear that the author of this article did not say that The Beach Boys were, as people, racists. That's every bit as clear to me as it is to you that Trump mocked that guy. And the people who believe Trump's dumb explanation are no more wrong than the people claiming this article called The Beach Boys racist.

It does not call them racists directly, but IMO it plants the seeds of the band being a somewhat toxic thing to like in today's PC culture, which I think sucks. A not insignificant number of impressionable young people are more than likely gonna get that impression, whether you think that is fair (or "on them"), or not.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 02:33:59 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4929



View Profile
« Reply #247 on: January 06, 2017, 02:32:53 PM »


I didn't think you had a bad intent or were using the term or any term pejoratively. I assumed that you do not have the same concerns that I do about the impact of putting focus on the age, sex or color of a speaker when the speaker's statements can stand on their own.

Do you not find it the least bit ironic that people who enjoy the band's music from the '60s, and enjoy it for just the deep feelings of love that it brings to them, and feel the music stands on its own (aside from the civil unrest that was going on concurrently when it was written/recorded) also do not wish to place such as heavy emphasis on continually reaching to find ways to tie in the band with those very same things - especially those who are NOT in denial about institutional racism being a thing?

Bottom line: the band benefited from being white during that era. No denying that. They also benefited from not all having Mike Love's hairline. And lots of other things. No need in either case (your example above, or mine in this response) to needlessly rope in race, etc. again and again and again, and frankly I don't even know what there is to argue about when I think (?) we seemingly agree on the main crux of this.  Smiley
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 02:38:18 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #248 on: January 06, 2017, 02:38:30 PM »

Let me ask you a question, CD. On a few occasions, you have asserted, correctly, that Trump has nominated people who
Have made homophobic statements and that he has mocked a disabled person (I notice that his strong record of misogynistic statements are less frequently raised). There are places on the internet where your statements would be flatly denied and would raise outrage. Would you be wrong to have made them?

Trump is a giant piece of sh*t, and his misogynistic statements horrify me as well (please don't for a moment think that they don't). If I have harped more on about mocking disabled people, it's probably because while some people defending him can perhaps try to "squirm" out of calling him trash for misogyny (saying that it's only a mere "interpretation"), there is NO way that anyone with their right mind can see him making fun of a disabled person's spasms and not outright puke. It's completely fucking indefensible.  I am just as disgusted with his treatment towards women, how Bannon calls lesbians "dikes", etc etc. Trust me, I have no shortage of outrage for how he talks about women.

Bottom line - you can't make fun of disabled people -blatantly on TV as a candidate - and then not apologize for it and still be considered not a piece of sh*t in my book. Ditto for Bannon. Ditto for Trump's "p*ssy" comment, etc etc etc.

So no, of course, I would not be wrong to have made the comments that I believe Trump is a giant ass.
Let me bring this back for a moment. Trump's made dozens of absolutely blatantly misogynist comments. As far as I know, he did the one thing about disability. But you focus on the disability because you think it will sell better with your audience. Does not talking about the misogyny help deal with misogyny, or does it just help you defend against "picking on Trump" attacks?
You and I have different agendas. My agenda does not include letting things like misogyny and racism slide because the people I'm talking to might miss some other point, or might irrationally hold it against The Beach Boys, or might be like the guy on that other thread who supports things because he likes to see other people upset. Usually, if this sort of topic comes up, the point about racism or misogyny is my agenda.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #249 on: January 06, 2017, 02:45:22 PM »


I didn't think you had a bad intent or were using the term or any term pejoratively. I assumed that you do not have the same concerns that I do about the impact of putting focus on the age, sex or color of a speaker when the speaker's statements can stand on their own.

Do you not find it the least bit ironic that people who enjoy the band's music from the '60s, and enjoy it for just the deep feelings of love that it brings to them, and feel the music stands on its own (aside from the civil unrest that was going on concurrently when it was written/recorded) also do not wish to place such as heavy emphasis on continually reaching to find ways to tie in the band with those very same things - especially those who are NOT in denial about institutional racism being a thing?

Bottom line: the band benefited from being white during that era. No denying that. They also benefited from not all having Mike Love's hairline. And lots of other things. No need in either case (your example above, or mine in this response) to needlessly rope in race, etc. again and again and again, and frankly I don't even know what there is to argue about when I think (?) we seemingly agree on the main crux of this.  Smiley
I don't think it's continual or heavy emphasis. I think it's pretty rare. I think Brian Wilson enjoys a stellar reputation as a good guy. I think Mike Love's reputation is more hotly disputed. I think the Beach Bous reputation is mainly that of very safe and cute light '60s pop, all of which is associated with a time when civil rights was a contested issue and I think almost nobody thinks of the Beach Bous are particularly involved with that one way or another. A subset of people think Brian Wilson is a soulful genius who is way beyond the early Beach Boys stuff Anne a smaller subset of people think The Beach Boys are broadly an underrated band who went on to do significant interesting work beyond the early hits, Pet Sounds and Smile and I think this article had almost no impact on the Beach Boys' reputation.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.629 seconds with 22 queries.