 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Igloo Bob
Date: 2004-07-22 09:48
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19980904dixieside5.asp
It happened 5 years ago, but this is the first time I've seen/heard of it. I'd be curious as to what the outcome was. The fact that anyone would find the Confederate flag being used in an art performance as offensive strikes me as someone just chomping at the bit to find something to be offended about. It's a re-enactment of a war! Should we pretend that the Civil War never happened? Should we ban any art based on history period, so that no one gets offended at something that happened a long time ago? Sometimes I feel as though our society is making great steps forward, only to find something like this to ruin my idealistic hopes. To squabble over such a petty thing (not that slavery itself was petty, but c'mon now, the Civil War was about much more than that, and over-simplifying the Civil War to a war about would make us lose sight of the historical truth) makes me wonder just which way we're taking those great steps.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-07-22 12:11
Post Edited (2004-07-22 14:40)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: saxlite
Date: 2004-07-22 13:38
I thought this BB was for discussion of clarinet-oriented topics. I, for one, would not appreciate it if it becomes a political forum, or a general chat room. There must be plenty of other venues for such off-topic material.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2004-07-22 14:38
Saxlite, I could not agree more!
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Igloo Bob
Date: 2004-07-22 14:58
Then I apologize for bringing up a political subject, and will not be offended if the thread is closed or receives no further discussion. However, this does leave a sour taste in my mouth (not the reaction, but the topic itself). Or perhaps it is because I just woke up and have not yet brushed my teeth.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bob A
Date: 2004-07-22 15:03
I guess we could comment on how well they played it? As for history I've always liked "Lilly Marlene" and both sides sang that.
Bob A
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-07-22 16:39
saxlite wrote:
> I thought this BB was for discussion of clarinet-oriented
> topics. I, for one, would not appreciate it if it becomes a
> political forum, or a general chat room. There must be plenty
> of other venues for such off-topic material.
There are two people who set the tone of this BBoard, GBK and myself. Let us do our job; we'll let you do yours.
This is directly related to music (and music studies) and we'll close it if/when it becomes necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: saxlite
Date: 2004-07-22 20:24
Mark--I deeply appreciate the amount of effort and the fine job you and GBK do in operating this BB. I have no intent towards becoming a one-man vigilance committee and hereby recall the posse. In passing, however, I would ask that you consider requesting that posters create topic titles that give some reasonable clue as to topic content; then we all may make more efficient use of the time spent perusing it. Thanks for your consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-07-22 21:48
saxlite wrote:
> In passing, however, I would ask that you consider
> requesting that posters create topic titles that give some
> reasonable clue as to topic content; then we all may make more
> efficient use of the time spent perusing it.
That's a request that is often honored in the breach; our topics here morph from time to time or the title is not representative of the question - but they're allowed all the same.
You have a choice to change the subject when you reply.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Todd W.
Date: 2004-07-22 22:00
saxlite -- Mark C. does indeed make that request periodically; he must occasionally feel like Sisyphus.
Igloo Bob -- Yes, sometimes reasonableness does seem in short supply, and our progress seems to be two steps forward and one backward. However, trying to put this incident (and a similar one a year or so ago involving a Nazi Germany swastika flag as part of a halftime show about the nations of World War II -- unfortunately coinciding with a Jewish high holy day) in perspective, and to keep the focus somewhat musical, here are a couple of thoughts.
1) Granted that almost anything will offend someone, somewhere, it's clear that certain items (for example, flags, tunes, words) are associated with events that deeply affected many people and have become symbols of those events, invested with the power to evoke strong emotional reactions, often negative reactions, in many people; reactions that go beyond rational thought.
2) If one wants to use such an item in an historical or educational way, rather than simply an emotional one, it may be necessary to prepare the audience ahad of time, providing time for the venting of those emotions and an acknowledgement of their validity, before moving on to the rationale behind the proposed presentation and a consideration of all points of view. (Even then, there may not be agreement about the appropriateness of the use of the item.)
3) Considering the complexities involved, a Friday night high school football game halftime show may not be the best venue for such a presentation.
So, the (musical) bottom line is that band directors designing halftime shows need to be knowledgeable, aware, sensitive individuals who program, for example, Sousa marches, or say, Fucik.
Todd W.
Post Edited (2004-07-22 22:09)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2004-07-23 04:08
I believe that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and that the Civil War was about slavery. Those who claim that the flag is about southern "pride" or that the war was about "state's rights" or some other hogwash are uninformed about US History or lying to cover up the dirty truth.
Igloo Bob - from what I can tell you are a young person who should spend some time studying and understanding the issues and history of Civil War, slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights, southern strategy before expressing knee jerk outrage and cliche anti PC sentiment. A little empathy would help too. good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-07-23 08:24
I see no reason for the brouhaha, although there is precedent for it. Prior to WWII the national guard of either Arizona or New Mexico had the Swastika (not actually the Swastika, but an indentical symbol borrowed from one of its native indian tribes) as its emblem. I believe that it has been permanently dropped since that time.
It was interesting to see the mention of Lili Marlene. There are a number of German pieces which were on the verboten list for the US military, although I don't know if Lili Marlene is among them. Interesting that we still sing the tune of Deutchland Uber Alles in many hymnals, as well as a Scandanavian piece (We Gather Together) which was co-opted by the SS. Somehow we have managed to rehabilitate both of these pieces--one of which remains Germany's national anthem. (but I'll REALLY be impressed when the British royals rehabilitate their old German surnames)
But the PC vs. Dixie thing does get pretty ridiculous. I remember playing in a community band where several black members ceased playing during a snippet of "Are You From Dixie" taking apparent offense at the mere presence of the word itself in the title of a song being played instrumentally. I wonder if police officers guarding gangsta rap concerts should be allowed to permit security breaches during songs that offend them?
Some people get offended even when the prop is part of something which promotes their point of view. Some years ago, I was playing at a theatre in SW Virginia and saw a letter posted of the bulletin board of its dormitory. The letter was from a Jewish couple who had attended some play dealing with (and excoriating, by their own admission) the Nazis. But they felt compelled to protest the presence of the Nazi flag--in a play ABOUT NAZIS! Might they not have thought to consider the subject matter before buying tickets?
And speaking of which: Thanks, larryb for your opinion, and your subsequent attack on Igloo Bob for expressing his. You would've done far better to say the same things to yourself in the mirror. Last I checked, we have a right to self-expression--but I couldn't manage to find a right not to be offended. But what the heck--I'll leave that to you, your congressional delegation and the various state legislatures to 'correct.'
Allen Cole
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Igloo Bob
Date: 2004-07-23 11:01
Quote:
I believe that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and that the Civil War was about slavery. Those who claim that the flag is about southern "pride" or that the war was about "state's rights" or some other hogwash are uninformed about US History or lying to cover up the dirty truth.
Having just taken AP US History this last school year (which is roughly equivalent to taking US History in almost any college) in Alaska, which is about as far North as you can get, I like to think we got a good look at the Civil War, and were likely quite free of any "southern bias" that may exist. We studied the Civil War from more than one textbook, dozens of packets and excerpts, and even read two novels about it (The Killer Angels and Red Badge of Courage). That being said, these are the reasons for the secessions that I took from the class, which I can support with quotes from the Declarations of Causes of Secession from various states, if need be (in my first draft of this post, I had quoted several states for all 4 points, but the post proved to be much too long. I still have the original saved, however). Granted, 3 of the 4 have in some way to do with slavery, but this is not quite the same as saying the only cause of the Civil War was slavery.
1) Northern unwillingness to respect laws and supreme court decisions regarding the South and slavery.
2) Northern unwillingness to abide by the Constitution, which directly protected slavery.
3) The North purposely working to gain an advantage in numbers and using that advantage to control law-making.
4) The original understanding that in coming together to form a nation, the states still held individual sovereignty, and the key quote in the Declaration of Independence regarding tyranny and the right to overthrow it.
While the first 3 do indeed deal with slavery, they were more about the north imposing themselves on the south's rights, many times in ways the law did not permit. While it is convenient to label them all as being caused by slavery, it is not a stretch to believe that any other major point of disagreement could've sparked a similar conflict. For effect, replace slavery with fried chicken in those first 3 numbers. While a war over fried chicken would seem ridiculous, the quotes don't stop making sense in context. The south still would've been seceding because the north was trying to take their fried chicken away.
Also a couple of things of interest -
-Roughly 25% of the south was made up of slave owners. With the knowledge that a large part of the Confederate army, then, had to have been made up by people without any slaves, one is hard pressed to prove that the south fought only for slavery. Perhaps those without slaves fought for southern "pride" or "state's rights"? We don't know. But I for one, would not fight and die so my neighbor could own some slaves. Perhaps I'm unique in that regard.
-The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until (roughly) a year into the war. Lincoln was more concerned with keeping the Union together than slavery, and then later used slavery as a moral tool, something to unite against. This is proven by a quote he made in 1962, around the time of the Emancipation Proclamation:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
So at this point, not only have we established reasonable doubt that the South fought directly and only for slavery, we have proof that the North's head man (while personally against slavery) did not consider the Civil War (which he was running, indirectly!) about slavery, but rather, about saving the Union.
Now I go back to your original quote:
Quote:
I believe that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and that the Civil War was about slavery. Those who claim that the flag is about southern "pride" or that the war was about "state's rights" or some other hogwash are uninformed about US History or lying to cover up the dirty truth.
I believe, then, that Lincoln would fall under the "some other hogwash" category. Was he uninformed, or a liar? I do not mean to personally attack you here, though I know that's likely how my post will come across. I just don't feel that your response was accurate, and the later dig in the same post about me needing to read up on the Civil War before I formed an opinion on it was a bit condescending, honestly.
Now all this leads up to how I find this issue "completely ridiculous" as my topic title says. When we have many southerners, all fairly intelligent people, as proven by their writing ability, giving multiple reasons for their leaving the Union, and none other than Lincoln saying that his reason for the war was preserving the Union, not a righteous crusade against slavery, I have a hard time believing that we can simplify the war to such simplistic terms. And indeed, following that vein, when people become offended about an art performance about the Civil War, because they see the Civil War and the Confederate flag as representing slavery, I think that's a bit insulting to the memory of those who died in the war. Certainly, many people were willing to die (and did do so) for reasons other than slavery, and to attempt to over-simplify their motives in the interest of easy stereotyped symbolism does not sit well with me. In my mind, it is no different than the stereotype many people hold of African Americans as losers who join gangs, commit crimes, do drugs, etc. Are there certain things that might point towards that stereotype? Sure. Look no further than rap music. But is that stereotype warrented to be applied to every African American, thus condemning the entire race? I think not.
Post Edited (2004-07-23 11:06)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-07-23 11:37
While this discussion has been generally informative and relatively polite, it's now turning farther and farther away from any relevance to art & music, never mind clarinet.
I'm closing this thread now; discussions need to keep a bit more on topic for this BBoard than where this one is heading.
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
