American Politics & Pop Culture

Music has definitely played a part in promoting peace and help ending the war earlier, but what was vital in the change was having the presense of John Lennon constantly broadcasted throughout the nation's television. His insistance of ending the war and bringing the troops back home, and constant questioning of the government and authority stirred the youth especially, as many of them are religious followers of the Beatles. Speaking out publicly and using any media tools to spread his message allowed him to connect with others that are dissatisfied with the war and unite the anti-war group even stronger. Despite Nixon winning a reelection in a landslide, I don't think it accurate reflects the power of John Lennon, radical music, or pop culture, considering the Youth Vote amendement was just ratified. But there seem to be a limit to the differences he could make within society, but his effort to promote peace by inserting it in every picture taken of him and every action and word he took, he kept the idea and hope of peace in mind of the American people. The fact that the U.S. government had him under the watch of FBI and had President Nixon updated on his every moves, is enough to prove how powerful his influences was over the people of the United States. The difficult transition of having a unified country and economical success after WWII and Cold War, to a fractionized state where riots and peace marches and creating of subcultures within the nation was new, and threatening to the government.

Posted by lungx009 at 03:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was a little disappointed with the documentary the U.S. vs. John Lennon. I thought it was interesting that the ideology of the documentary was too favorable to the anti-intellectual or antibourgeois cause of the hippy era. I think the reason for this was entirely superficial. Namely, because it would make for a more compelling story and thus sell more commodities. Thinking about this in Literary terms, every story including realism, has to include some elements of idealism. Otherwise, who would find it entertaining? Interesting? There was not one dissenting perspective or opinion toward the antibourgeois cause that was taken seriously in the documentary's ideology. And the film used every kind of technology at its disposal like visual rhetoric; camera angles, picture framing, juxtaposition, archival material like actual testimony, interview clips, and so on to convey a persuasive ideology to convince viewers of the greatness of the historical time period and the legitimacy of the hippie cause that was in fact a rather dis- ingenious and ignorant form of childish rebellion against one's own culture and tradition.
Thinking about who John Lennon was, is useful for understanding his mission and others like him because almost universal to the oligarchs of the antibourgeois, (the 1960-70’s rock culture figureheads) there is a common theme; working class background and youthful rebellion against one’s parents and other forms of authority, and anti-intellectualism. Much of this disingenuous legacy is still with us today.
Tairq Ali gave a snippet of commentary when he was asked about John Lennon and said “The notion, that the world’s largest, most powerful imperial nation-the United States of America-could be seriously threatened by a writer, a singer, and intellectual, a painter is laughable-I mean, it’s just a joke.” This is a form of ideology that I fundamentally disagree with. Tariq is putting John Lennon in the same category as an intellectual. Many see him as such. Socrates like John Lennon was ostracized by society and small minded people for his notions of encouraging people especially those in power to be scrupulous. Socrates was an intellectual by the definition of the term. John Lennon was more akin to being a philistine by the definition of the term. They are not equal. Ralph Gleason summarized Bob Dylan’s ideology as thus: “He is saying in short, that the entire system of Western society, built upon Aristotelian logic, Judeo-Christian ethic, and upon a series of economic systems from Hobbes to Marx to Keynes, doesn’t work.” Really? From who’s perspective? Someone educated about such matters that can articulate a clear idea of how this works and can persuade the educated classes to believe it? Certainly not. If they are of “the left” but they don’t even know the first thing about Karl Marx, are they really of “the left” or are they just a bunch of bratty kids rebelling against authority with no clear purpose and for no clear goal? Are they really a credible source then in that case? They are about as credible as Saddam posing an imminent threat to the West.
There is a form of ignorance to all this rock cultural mentality that is still a part of our culture today. Part of the peace pushers’ mentality was to not have any doubt about what their mission was. When Lennon and Yoko Ono were being interviewed on a talk show during the documentary before Bobby Searle came out and was endorsed by Lennon, Yoko said “We don’t have any space for negative thought; we just think we have to have it (peace).” So in other words, there is no room for criticism or debate. Or we might even say, there is no room for open mindedness or thinking outside the box. It’s similar to Roskolnikov in Crime and Punishment “2+2=4, it’s just simple arithmetic.” That is the justification he used to murder his landlord and steal her money so he could use it to give to the poor. If he could kill one person and save thousands from starving to death, why wouldn’t he do it, right? Later he encountered a problem he hadn’t thought about. How was his conscience going to deal with the idea of being a murderer? He discovered it really wasn’t so simple after all. Likewise, the oligarchs of the anti-bourgeois like Lennon, Yoko, Dylan, Presley, etc. should realize by now too that the problems of the day were also not as simple as they imagined.
Being from a working class background is prime grooming for life as an anti-intellectual. If one doesn’t go to college and learn how to specialize and become ever more sophisticated, it’s hard to appreciate something like the Mona Lisa or The Three Penny Opera. Typical of working class people, not finding social mobility leads to frustration with the ruling class apparatus or system. But can we say that because the ruling classes dominate our culture that the past 2000 years of western civilization are expendable and are disposable? To borrow Tariq Ali’s quote “that is (also) laughable, I mean it’s just a joke.” So if you can’t achieve upward mobility, then do you have to bring the whole culture down to a lower level? Destroy your whole culture and start over? Allow Muslims to take over? Who is interested in that? Where are all the adults in this madness? Often working class parents don’t care about their kid’s education, it’s not hard to see the negative consequences. For example, Diana West cites an example of a school in the DC area who’s principal after witnessing several students engaging in rear-entry sex on the dance floor to some kind of vulgar hip-hop cultural music that isn’t from a western tradition. As she points out “the no-freak pledge, sparked a student led protest about freedom and expression with more than three hundred students signing a petition against this supposed abridgement of student rights. ‘Civil rights are falling by the wayside every second,’ said Laura George, a mother who actually encouraged her daughter and her classmates to stand up for their ‘civil rights’ to in effect simulate sexual intercourse on the gymnasium floor. ‘I’ve got to take a stand here for my kids. I’ve got to teach them that you’ve got to question authority when authority’s gone mad.’” This case is part of the residual anti-logic, anti tradition, culture of the hippy era. If they only knew the effects they would have.

Posted by dahme012 at 02:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Analyzing the political standpoint of John Lennon is extremely different from that of any other popular culture figure. His songs were considered a dangerous means of political advocating since several were equated in importance with national anthems. During this time of movement some of his methods were bizarre. For example, when John Lennon and Yoko Ono spent an entire week in bed protesting for peace, it was unlike the political acts of anyone before them.

In a way music does have the ability to save lives. Music gives people something to believe in which may be all it takes to turn a life around. Having a song… a feeling… an emotion… a message to believe in may be a temporary escape from reality or precisely what is needed for a return to reality. While every song may have its own message, interpretations vary from one individual to the next and that is what makes music so important. With regard to the music of John Lennon, his songs had a very specific message to them being “All we are saying, is give peace a chance” or “Imagine.”Ii believe that it is impossible to listen to the lyrics, "You may say that I'm a dreamer/But I'm not the only one/I hope someday you'll join us/And the world will be as one" without feeling the sense of wholeness that John Lennon was striving for with his music. These utopian themed songs often gave people hope and the strength to question the Establishment.

-Monica Weir

Posted by weir0041 at 11:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In response to the branding of leftist radicals by government officials as disloyal and “traitors,” I believe that doing so was really a sign of fear by the government. John Lennon was a good example of such a so-called “traitor” to the government during the 60’s. As the John Street article describes, government officials were among “those who fear for music’s effects, for whom the politics lie in its ability to exercise power over its listeners, to shape and influence thoughts and actions.” As far as free speech in music is concerned, I think there should be some kind of line drawn, but I do not think that John Lennon crossed that line, or was being disloyal. He was simply trying to get American people to realize that they had a rightful voice and power in promoting peace, and he did that in a way that was nonviolent.

Because Lennon and other musical artists were so famous during the Vietnam War era, they became extremely influential to the people, which really caused the U.S. government to feel threatened. As the Perone reading states, on Lennon’s and Yoko Ono’s album ‘Sometime in New York City,’ Ono’s song “We’re All Water” contains “controversial juxtapositions” of “well-known figures such as the Pop and Charles Manson, President Richard Nixon and the Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao... ." The government found lyrics the included ideas such as these to be a threat to patriotic thought and national stability, because they were coming from the voices of pop culture and directly related to current political situations. Specifically in John Lennon’s case, the government tried to mitigate this threat by deporting him, but it was unsuccessful. Lennon mentioned in the film that even if he were deported, it wouldn’t stop him from voicing his opinion and singing the same songs of peace anyways. If anything, Lennon’s deportation would probably have brought more attention to him from the American people.

Posted by joh02361 at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In “The U.S. vs. John Lennon,” Gloria Emerson, a reporter for the New York Times, asks John Lennon, in reference to his songs about peace, “you don’t actually think you’ve saved a single life?” Her statement, insinuating that music/musicians do not have the ability to affect change and save lives, is ludicrous. There are many examples of how music has made an impact, on both a global and individual scale.

Some artists, like John Lennon, Bob Dylan, and U2 (to name a few), have focused much of their careers on bringing social, economical, and political issues (on personal, national, and global level), to the attention of the masses. As we saw in the film, John Lennon channeled much of his political feelings into songs, penning “Give Peace a Chance,” “Imagine,” and “John Sinclair.”

Bob Dylan, as well, used music as an avenue for political expression, with songs like “The Times They Are a-Changin,’” North Country Blues,” and “Hurricane.” Like Lennon’s concert for John Sinclair (which got him released from prison), Dylan held a benefit for Rubin “Hurricane” Carter (Dylan song’s namesake), a boxer accused of murder. Though he won the right to a new trial, he was once again convicted.

For many years, U2 have been active in raising awareness for a litany of causes. They have participated in benefits like Band Aid (a benefit concert for Ethiopian famine relief), written songs such as, “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” “Walk On,” and “Peace on Earth,” and most recently, played a pivotal part in the “Product Red” and “ONE” campaigns, which aim to combat global disease and poverty, amongst other issues. U2 drummer, Larry Mullen Jr., states it best, “Politics and music I find very hard to distinguish, where do you draw the line?”

Countless artists, whether they are actively political in their music, have participated in benefit concerts, which raise money and awareness for many different issues. Though many of the songs performed at these events are not political themselves, it is used instead as a catalyst to unify people around a common cause. One such event, Live 8, which took place in 2005 in concurrence with the G8 Summit, aimed to “pressure world leaders to drop the debt of the world’s poorest nations, increase and improve aid, and negotiate fair trade rules.” It was successful in that “G8 leaders pledged to double the amount of aid to poor nations.”

Sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Bloody_Sunday_%28song%29

Posted by palaz012 at 11:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

During the initial stages and the escalation of the Vietnam War, the American homefront was a turbulent environment to say the least. People like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Bobby Seale spoke out against the war and sparked a backlash against the tactics of the U.S. government. This time also marked the peaceful messages spread by Beatle, John Lennon. Reporter Gloria Emerson mocked Lennon by inquiring, "You don't [actually] think you've saved a single life" [by writing and singing songs about peace]? This statement is extremely ignorant, however. One must only look around in order to see the influence Lennon had on the American youth of the time. Lennon's songs and messages produced change in America by spreading the message of peace and providing a voice for which the younger generations could challenge the status quo. If one were to evaluate the impact of John Lennon on the surface, it may seem that he had little success in pitting himself against U.S. institutions. For one, Nixon won by a landslide victory in getting reelected in '72. Also, the FBI was constantly looking for ways in which they could eliminate Lennon as a threat to their pro-war message. Looking deeper into Lennon's life, however, we find that his impact and success as an artist was profound. Although Nixon, a pro-war candidate was reelected to office in '72 and several U.S. institutions viewed him as a threat, Lennon's peaceful tactics were heard by millions and became the unified voice of the younger generations. One FBI agent went as far as saying, "Anyone who didn't like [America] could either shut up or leave...that was the way, I think, all of us felt." This is also an ignorant comment made by an individual who was, himself, removed from the "counter-culture" of the time. Millions rallied and protested the war and their voices were unified through figures like Lennon. As long as individuals like this are in powerful positions, however, there is little chance for those out of power to be heard. In a democratic society, this strictly violates the prinicples to which this type of government is based on. The freedom of protest should be extended to every individual, even those deemed threats, such as Lennon.

Posted by stap0069 at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Contrary to Gloria Emerson’s thinking that music doesn’t save lives, I believe that it can save them through changing both popular appeal and the listener’s minds. The more popular an artist’s gets, the more likely mainstream America is likely to listen to them. And mainstream American is what decides the course of America, so I believe that laws and national changes can be made. Even though Richard Nixon won the election of 1972 in a landslide victory, I think that Lennon’s anti-war attitude still shone through in popular politics. It is possible in ’72 that people agreed with much of Nixon’s actions as a president, even though they might have been against his views on the war. I think the fact that he won the presidency with such a landslide means that the American voters thought that he was a better candidate than whoever he was running against, not necessarily that they thought he was right on Vietnam. I don’t believe that Lennon failed to impart a significant change in America’s stance on Vietnam, so I don’t believe it diminished his legacy at all. Tariq Ali has a good point to make about one man really affecting what he sees as the “largest, most powerful, imperial nation”; in reality, while one man can’t overthrow the government or make sweeping culture changes, he can contribute to an idea, and that idea can grow powerful enough to make real changes happen, so I believe they were rightly afraid. I think that Liddy, Hoover, Nixon, et al, were a bit too harsh to see leftist radicals of the 60’s as disloyal and traitorous, but I think the fringe elements of either party are very dangerous, and were probably correct in worrying about how the things they might say and do would affect America. I think part of having an effective government is feedback from the people. If people have no way to vent the frustrations they had with the government, there is no real avenue for improvement. I think conformity is as dangerous to a society as dangerous dissent. Many ideas still resonate today, especially with the Iraq War, which draws many parallels with the action of the Vietnam era. I do notice much effort by the government now, as then, to really quash dissent and maintain the status quo, but I believe that goes along with the position and the appearance of power.

Posted by nemme003 at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the film when Gloria Emerson asked Lennon whether or not he actually believed he's saved lives with his music about peace, her tone is attacking and condescending. She is implying how naive he is to think that by singing songs with lines like "All we are saying, is give peace a chance," which became somewhat of the anthem to the peace movement, actually changed anything.

I would disagree with her on this point. While his music obviously did not directly lead to an end of the war or directly save lives, it most definitely had an effect on the mentality of society as a whole. In his article titled Music and Radical Politics, Perone quotes political leader Jerry Rubin saying "I thought maybe the real battle of America is not politics, it's lifestyle." (102) This influence on the lifestyle primarily was the "sex, drugs & rock 'n roll" stigma that many artists, including Lennon portrayed in their lyrics and actions. By focusing on lifestyle changes, it allowed artists to indirectly cause political change by changing society's mentalities about what is important in life. It extended beyond their lyrics and allowed them to make "the musical style and performance practice...the message." (103) In addition to the affects that Lennon and others had on lifestyle, they obviously scared politicians who were in favor of the war. Perone also states in his article that "it has been established that the primary reason for [Lennon's] difficulty in obtaining the green card was because of his involvement in the anti-war movement and in the New York radical political scene." (108) So whether or not critics believe that Lennon influenced lifestyle, which he most obviously did, he definitely placed pressure on government officials to change, which is evidenced in them trying to deport him. So, without question, music truly does have the ability to make significant changes in the "real world."

Posted by marsh401 at 11:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Music by itself may not have the ability to save lives, but it can definitely sustain or push someone in the right direction towards finding happiness in desperate and dark times. Music speaks to the heart, and good music (which is becoming harder and harder to find these days) no doubt helps a person. The Beatles and John Lennon touched the lives of millions of people, and their music continues to do so. Music is that form of communication that is indescribable - you can only experience and feel it. Music was the medium which played a huge role in bringing me out of darkness once, and it continues to inspire and move me. Music for me is a form of therapy, and without it I would go insane. I play, listen, and feel it and let it move in and through me. Music is one important gift we humans have been given; We must always be aware of its major influence on society and use it to help people.

Posted by probe001 at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gloria Emerson, a reporter from the New York Times, asked Lennon, “You don’t [actually] think you’ve saved a single life” [by writing and singing about peace]? I truly believe that some music has the ability to either save lives or make a change in the world and that it is not just a nitch for disaffected youth. I believe John Lennon and Yoko Ono would agree with me on that because they not only firmly believed that they could bring about a change but also lives. Why else would they do what they did? According to the book, “Rock, Pop, and Politics,” by J. Street, “These enemies (enemies of popular music, specifically Rock n Roll) have warned of its (Rock n Roll) extraordinary power to influence the way people think and act” (273). The article went on to talking about how under communism and capitalism in the name of Islam musicians of pop music were punished and pop music was banned. Obviously these regimes or institutions were aware of the effects of music on their society if they were willing to take such protective measures. Music’s success and ability to motivate, inspire, and capture dreams makes it a concern to its enemies (pg244 article by J. Street). Looking at teenagers now a day’s one can say that they idolize some artists. They see and think the artists are exceptional because they are drinking, smoking marijuana, and having sex and that has a big impact on them and influences them and makes them strive to imitate them and become more like them. According to the book,” Ethics of Rock”, Plato and Socrates, remarked, “musical training is powerful because rhythm and harmony sink deeply into the soul and fix themselves there solidly” (77). Music can have significant affect on one, influencing not only feelings but also behavior. So, yes some music can bring about peace or a message of inspiration and hope potentially saving lives just as much as it can cause suicide or chaos.

Posted by karp0040 at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Personally, I believe that music truly has the ability to save lives and make significant changes in the "real world". John Lennon proved that to the world several decades ago. His music did make people think about giving this world what it has always deserved, peace. John Lennon himself and his music gave people the belief that each and every one of them could make a difference, could bring peace to the country, to the world with their united contributions. I think it would be wrong to say John Lennon's music had no affects on how the people around the world, especially the American people, think and act. There were and are millions of fans of John Lennon's music, using his music to bring the message of peace across the globe. His music can save lives; it can bring peace to people and make them realize how peace is the best solution of dilemmas. The largest population of America was attracted by Lennon's music was the youth, the young adults at the time. Let's think about it. Teenagers, young adults are the little trees of a society. If the ideas of violence, fighting, wars are brought to them through the music that they listen to, they will more likely to grow up and turn into people who believes violence is the answer to their problems, and will solve those problems with violent acts. How the little trees turn out depends on how you bend them and what you feed them during their growth. It is a fact that music is powerful. It can go deep into people's minds and grow in them. It can give the message "Give peace a chance" through the walls of the White House, where Richard Nixon looked out the window, more clearly and loudly. Music can give people more power to speak out as groups, groups of protesters, asking for peace, giving it a chance. It does change the world, and save lives. I think it can bring the message of peace to every where around the world most affectively. Think about all the rallies of peace during the cold wars; lots of them were the occasions for "Give Peace a Chance" to be sang with vibrant pride. Music can change people, either to be peaceful, or violent. It sure can. In the case of John Lennon, if his music didn't affect or change people's thinking, why did they use his songs to sing at the protests? And I think his music still works today. An American who is against the war in Iraq would use "Give peace a chance" to say "stop the war, bring the troops home". The song still has its original spirit; the strong spirit of peace has not faded. John Lennon's music did change the world in the past, and I believe it still does.

Posted by truon052 at 11:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found the John Lennon documentary “The U.S. vs. John Lennon,” extremely interesting and intriguing. I had seen this film before, but in watching it a second time I found it to be more interesting, and I picked up on things that I hadn’t really paid attention to the first time I watched it.

The amount of controversy that John Lennon started I find to be almost humorous. He was so peaceful and carried out his protests with such a great sense of humor. I never knew much about John Lennon, but this documentary really provided a good background of his life and provided answers as to why he was the way he was.

I think Lennon’s spirit of dissent was very admirable, but at the same time I do see why people could have gotten frustrated with him. Because he was not a U.S. resident, him protesting so much in America and about American policy was a little bit unnecessary. Definitely it is good to have an opinion and take a stand for ones beliefs, but I can see how him doing this in a country that wasn’t even his would be maddening. Because he was not a US citizen he had no way of showing his loyalty to America.

Although I can see the point of view that John Lennon was totally out of line, I tend to think Lennon’s protests and ideas did make people start to reconsider the war. He spoke his beliefs in a way in which he did not blatantly attack the U.S. government, but spoke about ideals of peace we should strive for. His celebrity status got many people to recognize that people were really upset about the war - even people who weren’t US citizens. And I think that’s why the U.S. government was so threatened by John Lennon. He was a huge celebrity that got a lot of attention and that a lot of people looked up to. So him being so outspoken and radical in showing how much he disapproved of the war made the U.S. government feel quite threatened.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 11:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I believe that music does have the ability to cause significant changes in the world. Music and art are not logical or rational media, but rather they appeal to an individual’s feelings and emotions. John Lennon is a master of this emotional connection with his listeners. One play of “Imagine” tells you just how strong this connection can be. Considering the inevitable magnification of these evocations by the emotional effects of social agendas such as the civil rights movement and the backlash against the Vietnam War during Lennon’s time, and it’s no wonder that the American government was concerned about his ability to rally supporters and protesters to his cause.
According to Lennon, several intimidation tactics, such as non-discreet shadowing and phone tapping, were taken by government agencies to coerce him into silence. The most public and nearly successful attempt was made when a notice of deportation was slipped under his front door, courteously bringing to his attention that his “temporary stay” in the United States had come to an end. The government felt cornered by his popularity and influence over the American people, and felt that these measures were a necessary attempt to bring stability to a volatile situation. However, I believe that this ultimately would have worked against them, causing riots and protests had he actually been successfully deported.

Posted by dunh0037 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To the hearing world sound can contol life. Sound tells us whether to cross the street; if a car is coming or not; wether we have fallen asleep at a stop sign; the honking of a horn; or how to groove to the music. Jingles are a prime exapmle of when music can change a person's life. A jingle gets stuck in a person's head and then a person is compelled to buy a product. The question was asked in the movie whether Lennon actually saves lives with his msuic. This gives me the image of Lennon using a giant guitar as a shield for our troops. But in reality Lennon influences the public to be against the war and help bring back the troops. For every extra minute the troops are brought back there many troops who are given a longer life. Lenon influences people with his music to dance to a certain beat and change the lives of others. Music is life!

Posted by Chris Lewis at 10:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I would say that music does have to ability to save lives and make changes to our world. However the impact of music might not be very visible right away. I believe that the changes will happen gradually and over a period of time, instead of a very noticeable rapid change. I think that music can save lives but it will happen because people will truly understand what those songs about peace really represent and stand for. It’s the people that have to take these messages of peace and practice what they preach. If more and more people actually follow these ideals they could take hold on our culture and politics. By having the public opinion favoring more peaceful approaches to certain domestic and foreign policies less fighting and war would hopefully take place. Obviously if there was less fighting and war in the world you could save countless lives. Some could say that this kind of music is only targeting certain youth demographics and doesn’t have any sort of effect on how the world is actually run. Musicians like John Lennon who spoke out against war and hatred, and promoted love and peace, were not always liked by everyone. A lot of people make money off of war and peace would defiantly not go along with their plans. They would in turn make it very hard for musicians and people who spread the word of peace to get their word out to the masses. The only way music can actually save people’s lives is to have a lot of people to agree with this message of peace. The actual work has to be done by the person, if you do nothing but listen to the music and say that it has no real purpose other than to sound appealing, peace through music will never happen. I feel that it is the people’s responsibility to see that music can in fact save lives and stop wars. Without people music is nothing, without people to hear it, music is only different noises, pitches and tones.

Posted by hove0107 at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This past week’s lecture was by far my favorite as to date. The video and lecture were the most interesting to me so far. In this week’s lecture we discussed how the 1960’s were a time of “movement” and that the ‘60’s were a leftover of World War II ideologies. This week’s video “The U.S. vs. John Lennon” was very educational, as I was not too familiar with this subject. I was blown away with the impact that this previous Beatle had on politics and the American population. John Lennon realized the power he possessed as a high profile figure and embraced its possibilities. During this time period, the Vietnam War was one of the main focuses in the media. Popular majority did not accept the Vietnam War. Most Americans did not agree with the grounds on which the war was being fought. No one was sure who the “true” enemy was and had trouble supporting the war due to the fact that there was no “Pearl Harbor” or “9/11” that started it. The Vietnam War divided the country nearly as severely as the Civil War. As an antagonist of the war John Lennon took a stand and did all he could to end the war and being our troops home. Of all the antiwar propaganda he created, my favorite was his song “Give Peace a Chance.” This song became the national anthem of the antiwar movement. Soon, Nixon and the FBI were concerned with the amount of support and influence Lennon had over the population and the antiwar movement. A quote from the movie, “John Lennon was a born enemy of anyone who governed the United States” explains it all. His phones were tapped and his every move was closely followed. They quickly found a loophole and tried to get Lennon deported, in which they greatly failed. Lennon’s efforts eventually did not cause the war to end or make any changes, but did have an impact on the community with his genius and creative protests including “bed peace” and “the war is over, if you want it.” And to end with another quote that had an impact on me was from Yoko Ono, “I think they tried to kill him, but his message lives on.”

Posted by mcgui149 at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This country was built on the idea that all people were created equally and that we all have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If these rights are being stifled it is our right if not our duty to stand up and rebel against the injustices of this country. Being a rebel is not being disloyal. The disloyalty lies with those who are ignoring the needed change in the country. I think that the line between disloyal and loyal is clear cut. If you are deliberately trying to hurt your country and its citizens then you are definitely being disloyal but if you are trying to make your country better and improve the quality of life for every citizen then you are being loyal to your country. As for free speech I do not think it is ok to say things to deliberately hurt someone, such as racial or bigoted slurs, and I also do not think there is a line for free speech. John Lennon did not cross a line. According to Street, “music has symbolic force, it deploys the power of language to create visions, articulate ideals and form bonds” through political expression (254). This expression is exactly why the right to free speech is so sacred. He used the right to free speech the way it should be used.

As for the quote from the FBI agent, I think he is an ignorant fool who does not truly care about this country. I completely disagree with this quote. You need to speak out against the government otherwise things do not change. If the system is left to itself it becomes corrupt and unbalanced. As citizens we should be checking in with government and make sure they are doing the right thing and the best thing for all of us. Change is hard for people and it is easy to conform. To conform is a good way to not upset the delicate balance of life as it is. It is easier for people to do nothing than to do anything. Most American’s are lazy and care for nothing except themselves so they conform to keep it simple. The radicals from the 60’s had to be so radical to show the inequalities in our country. I think that this lazy, selfish idea still lives today. I really noticed this right after 9/11. Anyone who spoke out against the actions taken by Bush was outcast and frowned upon. You can see it know too. Bush has been cutting funding for public broadcasting for last few years and it is clearly because they have spoken out against him since he was elected. In times of was dissent is ok depending on the circumstances. In a war like WWII, where America was attacked dissent is fine but not necessary. If it is a war like Iraq, or Vietnam, then yes I think dissent is essential.

Grant Flatgard

Posted by flat0101 at 10:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is undoubtedly a fine line separating dissent from disloyalty in American politics. Wednesday's film about John Lennon's post-Beatles years shows exactly how fine that line can be. Lennon was one of the most outspoken people regarding the Vietnam War, which obviously upset many pro-war politicians trying to justify the cause. In turn, he was also one of biggest celebrities of the day. This combination, and the fact that Lennon was from a foreign country, forced the Nixon administration to try censor Lennon's messge by any means possible. They believed Lennon and Oko's promotion of peace was disloyal and traitorous, even though they were trying to save the lives of "our boys" and the soldiers of all nations involved in the war. In my opinion, Lennon's actions constitute dissent, not disloyalty. He was not giving military secrets to the Viet Cong or planning a violent revolution to overthrow the US government,he was writing and singing songs about bringing peace to the world in order to make it a better place to live. He rallied support in opposition of Nixon for the election, especially among the youth and young adults because he saw a problem with the way Nixon and his comrades were running the country, which is very similar to the way America became a country. John Lennon's British free speaking mind was much more "American" than the Nixon adminstration's obsession with lies, deceit, and, as we learned in the film, murder. Ths is why Lennon is remembered as one of America's biggest heroes, while Nixon is usually remembered as cover-upping thief.

Posted by ross0426 at 10:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Can music change the world? Can a riff, song or genre reach the public and convince them to change their lifestyle/vote/political view? Directly, no. It is unlikely that one of John Lennon’s songs could be unequivocally linked to a survivor of the Vietnam War. People are not passive recipients of the messages sent out by artists. Every note, lyric and album is a drop in the ocean of information reaching each listener’s ears. However that does not suggest that music does not have the ability to make significant changes in the world.
As stated before, people are shaped by so many variables that it is impossible to point to a single factor behind any choice. Genetics, personal experience and the networks surrounding each person merge to create reality as we know it. No verse, song or band is powerful enough to surmount this trifecta. That being said, as part of the overall equation, a song can definitely have an impact on society at large; particularly if it has anywhere near as wide dissemination as a former Beatle’s album.
People are influenced by what they experience as well as their networks. A song by a favored artist falls into both of these categories. As Perone indicates they have the power to symbolize “the revolution that politicos” seek; in doing so they both propagate and encourage the ideas within the piece (98). To a fan with no previous exposure songs can plant the seeds of an idea and to a listener they can reinforce and strengthen an understanding already existent.
A large majority of those that listen to a song are simply enjoying the melody, unaware of any underlying messages or truths. They enjoy the beat and it makes them feel good and that is enough. But there is a large enough audience already incited and/or tuned in to the suggestions of the text to absorb and respond to it. In that sense music can be used as a powerful tool to reinforce and spread the ideas of a minority.

Nyssa Shawstad

WORKS CITED
Perone, James E. “Music and Radical Politics” in American History Through Music: Music of the Counterculture Era (Greenwood Press, 2004)

Posted by shaw0139 at 10:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The statement that "anyone who didn't like America could either shut up or leave" is not only ignorant but dangerous as well. If no one challenged the status quo or questioned the government we would have no change or growth. People like John Lennon protested what they did not like and stood up for what they believed in until someone listened. John Lennon's commitment to change helped the country accept new ideas.

It is important to have differing ideas in a country because if everyone conformed then nothing would ever change. As times change and new ideas and beliefs enter the culture the country needs to incorporate them into our government. If no one is challenging our leaders what will motivate them to change?

This same issue still exists today - especially with the war in Iraq. There is a large amount of people who do not support the war and do not agree with President Bush's policies. It is necessary for these people to protest and speak up so that real change can take place. The main theme of the election is change and who will be able to best move our country into the next phase. People who think that dissent is not patriotic need to remember what our country was built on.

Posted by fran0723 at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My sister rocks this bumper sticker that is a quote from Howard Zinn which states that, “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Whenever I borrow her car to get groceries I feel so progressive, hoping people will pair me with such breathtaking idealism because they think I put that on my bumper. I think in essence that statement is true; keeping the place you live and exist within accountable for its actions shows concern for it. I think inaction is more disrespectful then anything John Lennon ever did or said. The complacency within a public over its government’s wrongdoings is certainly more offensive then anything one man could ever do. The issue lies within the difference in strain dissent and complacency put upon the government. Complacency on any level does effects very little of any sort of government action so it matters very little to the higher levels of the political within a country. If the government governs a complacent nation, it gets to do what it wants. However, dissent, even on a small scale, can cause quite a stir, breeding awareness and action, something that when pitted against the political can be very troublesome. A perfect example of this within pop culture was highlighted in this weeks movie, the issue concerning Lennon’s outspoken opinions about Vietnam. The Rock Pop, and Politics reading put it best saying, “pop and rock have achieved on thing: they have made popular music into a political issue, and they have invested it with the potential to endanger and disrupt the established order.” When this order or complacency is disrupted the government becomes threatened to the extent of tapping phones and placing limitations on passports, as was the case with Lennon and other activists of the era. Tariq Ali’s quote which tries to demean the influence of writer’s or thinkers is discredited not only by these actions, but the by the type of society that is promoted even today. We live within a distracted, complacent culture, uninformed and apathetic. We might be the most powerful nation, but on average we are also becoming the most stupid. But this is easier to govern, because people like to watch American Idol and complain about how uncomfortable a classroom is (see: Thomas Kuppe’s blog) rather than being aware of what their government is up to.This attitude of dissent found within the 60’s will most likely never again resonate on a large scale within society, because no sort of political conviction will last more than a week within a person who is used to getting a full meal handed to them within thirty second after asking for it without ever having to get out of their car. Dissent stopped being cool when it became work.

Posted by mende058 at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My sister rocks this bumper sticker that is a quote from Howard Zinn which states that, “dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Whenever I borrow her car to get groceries I feel so progressive, hoping people will pair me with such breathtaking idealism because they think I put that on my bumper. I think in essence that statement is true; keeping the place you live and exist within accountable for its actions shows concern for it. I think inaction is more disrespectful then anything John Lennon ever did or said. The complacency within a public over its government’s wrongdoings is certainly more offensive then anything one man could ever do. The issue lies within the difference in strain dissent and complacency put upon the government. Complacency on any level does effects very little of any sort of government action so it matters very little to the higher levels of the political within a country. If the government governs a complacent nation, it gets to do what it wants. However, dissent, even on a small scale, can cause quite a stir, breeding awareness and action, something that when pitted against the political can be very troublesome. A perfect example of this within pop culture was highlighted in this weeks movie, the issue concerning Lennon’s outspoken opinions about Vietnam. The Rock Pop, and Politics reading put it best saying, “pop and rock have achieved on thing: they have made popular music into a political issue, and they have invested it with the potential to endanger and disrupt the established order.” When this order or complacency is disrupted the government becomes threatened to the extent of tapping phones and placing limitations on passports, as was the case with Lennon and other activists of the era. Tariq Ali’s quote which tries to demean the influence of writer’s or thinkers is discredited not only by these actions, but the by the type of society that is promoted even today. We live within a distracted, complacent culture, uninformed and apathetic. We might be the most powerful nation, but on average we are also becoming the most stupid. But this is easier to govern, because people like to watch American Idol and complain about how uncomfortable a classroom is (see: Thomas Kuppe’s blog) rather than being aware of what their government is up to.This attitude of dissent found within the 60’s will most likely never again resonate on a large scale within society, because no sort of political conviction will last more than a week within a person who is used to getting a full meal handed to them within thirty second after asking for it without ever having to get out of their car. Dissent stopped being cool when it became work.

Posted by mende058 at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I knew quite a bit about John Lennon from a British stand point because he is a legend back home. However, I did not realize to the extent that he had affected people’s lives in America. He probably made more of a stand point in America than he did in the UK because of the times America going through.
John Sinclair, in the article Music and Radical Politics made this point and stated, “Rock music is revolution” and that “while the counterculture era may not have witnessed a huge number of songs that openly touted evolution, the entire gestalt of the rock music experience, which included high volume, drugs, sexual freedom, rebellion against authority, and so forth, symbolized the revolution that radical politics sought” (pg. 98).
This is a main point that I took from the film The US vs. John Lennon. John Lennon served as a great output for young people after the war. It was a great person to follow in the search for world peace. The younger generations were speaking out against authorities and making a massive standpoint. They used Lennon as a leader in a way. The lyrics in his songs all focused towards the theme of world peace. The question was asked, did Lennon save lives. He probably did not nut he definitely did something towards the cause. This was shown by Nixon trying to deport him back to the UK. If Nixon was trying to do that, as President, Lennon must have been doing the right things to help world peace and go against the American Government. I think one of the main reasons that Lennon was so popular with the American youth was because he was different to all other ‘authority’ figures.
As John Street said in his article, Rock Pop, and Politics, “pop and rock have achieved on thing: they have made popular music into a political issue, and they have invested it with the potential to endanger and disrupt the established order.” This I think sums up exactly what John Lennon managed to do in America. He was the one that started it all off.

Posted by culve018 at 09:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There are many people who would agree with the notion that music has the power to save and change lives. John Lennon was one of those people and his music during the 60’s and 70’s gave a voice to many around the world who wanted peace and opposed the Vietnam War. This “threat” of a cultural icon speaking out against government foreign policy scared politicians because many anti-war activists saw Lennon as one of them and looked up to him for guidance and hope. Also, in The US VS John Lennon, Felix Dennis states that Lennon had “…some intellectual force behind the argument”, which was something not seen by many celebrities during that time. In fact, the US government was so threatened by Lennon that they attempted to bring him to court, “expose” him as unpatriotic, and deport him. This idea of anything anti-war being unpatriotic and disloyal to the United States was just as popular as Lennon’s. Many Americans, especially politicians, felt that those who disagreed with government’s foreign policy were not loyal to their country. We have recently seen this type of clash between music and politics with the Dixie Chicks in early 2000 while touring in Europe. At a concert they made an anti-Bush remark and heads rolled, leaving them to be ostracized by their American fans, politicians, and also by fellow musicians. Both the country music band and Lennon spoke out against a war that many felt that we had no place being in; however, Lennon was never able to see the change that he so desperately wanted. Even though Lennon’s anti-war movement did not produce political results, his legacy as a musical genius will live on.

Posted by colb0086 at 09:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Obviously this music and movement held a lot of power, as Perone article discusses on page 702, they “had the numbers”. With much of the nation in support, they were a threat to the government, although really they shouldn’t have been. Tariq Ali states that, “The notion that the world’s largest, most powerful, imperial nation - the United States of America - could be seriously threatened by a writer, an intellectual, a singer, a painter, is laughable - I mean, it’s just a joke.” However, it didn’t take long for the government to see this “joke” as a real threat. If it were not a threat, they would not have tried so hard to shut it down. If it were nothing to worry about, they wouldn’t have FBI agents in the crowd writing down lyrics.
The whole deportation thing was a complete farce. If it wasn’t, why would they have waited until that point to file a case against him? They waited until the height of his peace movement to thinkup this shenannigan. Everyone knew it was completely bogus, especially the Lennons, but it’s hard to fight when you’re playing with the people that make the rules. The government had to bring him down some way and apparently the marijuana charge was the best they had to work with. It was definitely not warranted and certainly unfair.
Somewhere along the path of history, the U.S. got the idea that they could stop all resistance/disagreement with what they did. We have seen it in history many, many times before- whether it be with political assasinations, “accidents” etc. I am sure the general public has no idea about how many people aka “revolutionists” that the government has attempted to silence. And all of this, in a nation where our constitution dedicates our country to free speech. However, apparently that’s only if you are not going against war efforts or the what the government says.
In reference to the FBI agent that stated, “Anyone who didn’t like [America] could either shut up or leave,” I say, if we are all sheep just following blindly, what happens when we are led off of a cliff? If we don’t speak up, nothing will change. If Blacks didn’t take a stand against racism back then, we may still have slavery or even be drinking from different fountains. If women didn’t take a stand, they wouldn’t be able to vote or work outside of the kitchen. We have seen plenty of examples like these in history where people have taken a stand against injustice and it eventually led to change. We all know that the government does a lot of things that are questionable, but if the people stand by and do nothing, we are just as guilty as they are. Thus, I definitely disagree with this statement by the agent. If the government is in place for the benefit of the people, then it should be held accountable by those same people. Thus, the leftist radicals of the 60’s were not disloyal or traitors, they were doing exactly what they should do as citizens. It was the government official being disloyal to the foundations that America was built on and betraying the rights of the people to question their decisions.
On a side note, one thing that resonated with me during the movie, was how similar this situation is to the one we face today.Take a look at these elements:
Unpopular, unnecessary war
Thousands die on both sides
People are upset and protest
President who started it promises to end it once re-elected
The people buy into it and elect him again
No timetable or real plan for cessation of war given
Does any of that sound familiar? Only difference is Bush hasn’t resigned due to scandal…yet. It is baffling to me how so little changes. History truly does repeat itself.

Posted by Jasmine Omorogbe at 09:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The movie that we watched this week was about John Lennon's life after the Beatles and about all of his radical beliefs on politics. The Vietnam War was a hot topic on everyone's mind during this time period of the 60's. Many people were confused and didn't know much about the war because they did not know exactly who we were actually at war with. Many of the people in the US did not like this war and thought that it was unnecessary and that we should have brought back all of our troops. The Ben Arnold reading begins with a very significant statement, “American wars have always been fought to musical accompaniments.” This was a very strong cause that Lennon fought for and really tried to show this belief with his songs. Lennon was strongly disliked by the Govt. because of his beliefs and the songs that he was creating. When hundreds of people congregated in government areas and sung Lennon's song, "Give peace a chance", this very much scared President Nixon and his staff because of the effect that Lennon could have on the American people. Gloria Emerson’s comment “You don’t [actually] think you’ve saved a single life” [by writing and singing songs about peace]? These were the type of comments that Lennon constantly fought everyday and just put behind him in his attempts to create world peace. John Sinclair, in the article Music and Radical Politics made this point and stated, “Rock music is revolution” and that “while the counterculture era may not have witnessed a huge number of songs that openly touted evolution, the entire gestalt of the rock music experience, which included high volume, drugs, sexual freedom, rebellion against authority, and so forth, symbolized the revolution that radical politics sought” (pg. 98). This was just another notch in the realm of politics that really helped Lennon change what the Govt. was doing. I believe that although Lennon might not have made that big of an impact on paper in creating world peace, his songs and rallies definitely played a great role in the pursuit of peace and happiness in the 60’s.

Posted by kapla137 at 09:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fears of rebellion fueled the phone-tapping and constant surveillance that John Lennon suffered during the Nixon administration. To some, this seemed like a “laughable” cause showing the true ignorance of the government. However, this fear was not unfounded, as pop icons presented a medium for dissemination of radical ideology. Author James E. Perone of American History Through Music: Music of the Counterculture Era, states, in reference to the band Chicago, that their “wide appeal translated into album sales” which “allowed what radical political messages” that were in the songs to “find their way into many American homes” (105). While the band Chicago had no relation to John Lennon, the concept of radical ideology “finding” its way into the American home through pop music certainly applied to him. It is likely that the U.S. government saw his popularity in the counterculture as well as in pop culture and feared that he, as well as other radical pop icons, would influence the minds of Americans. While the phone-tapping and surveillance of John Lennon and other radicals was highly unethical, the fears that spawned these actions were real.

Posted by islex007 at 09:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Anyone who didn’t like [America] could either shut up or leave… that was the way, I think all of us felt.” This was a very powerful way of thinking among many people during the 60’s. I guess I do agree with this statement during this time period. During this time the government needed the support of the citizens and could not worry about people trying to undermine the cause. People thought they were very blessed to live in America and they thought that you should appreciate this and conform to the government’s ideals. Many people were strong conformists they wanted to support their country and support all the ideals that their parents and relatives struggled to protect and instill. Others on the other hand were very radical in their opposition to the government, they spoke out vehemently against what they thought was unjust, unfair, or in their opinion, wrong with America. I think with the current time period of the war in Iraq these ideas still resonate. There are individuals that strongly oppose the decisions of the government, and speak out radically. However, there are the conservatives, or the conformists that believe dissenters should be eliminated. I believe that dissent is required to run a successful country. However, in a time of war it can be very dangerous to have a strong dissenting population. In times of need and crisis I believe we all need to pull together for the common good of the county.

Posted by zabor005 at 09:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I never realized just how legendary John Lennon is until I watched this documentary. I didn’t know to what extent his music and protest impacted the lives of young people during the 1960s.
I definitely think that music has the ability to positively affect peoples’ lives, however, I’m not sure I agree that music can save lives. John Lennon proved that his music and lyrics truly affected the young, anti-war population of the United States, specifically during the Vietnam War. The song Revolution really transformed the Beatles from poppy ‘mop-tops’ to very mature and politically aware artists. As former U.S. Senator, George McGovern, stated the Vietnam War divided the United States much like during the Civil War, and John Lennon was able to bring hope to at least one group of people- the younger populations- that peace is a possibility. He gave them enthusiasm and reason to protest. And they gave him support and reason to continue toward his goal of world peace. Lennon’s lyrics were very powerful during the 60s and had a huge impact on the counter-culture.
It is interesting to see how threatened the United States government was by John Lennon. Lennon was a very powerful activist, and the Nixon administration could not control his actions, nor could they weaken his influence. And since the media was obsessed with Lennon, his impact was even more powerful. His message was everywhere. The paranoia Lennon created in the administration was immense. Lennon was able to create a political enthusiasm in young people that lead to demonstrations outside the White House. These demonstrations had a huge impact within the administration, and eventually lead the government to constantly watch John Lennon. In the end, Lennon’s threat caused Nixon’s administration to serve him with deportation papers. However; I find it particularly interesting that Lennon and Ono fought this, and with the help of their young supporters. I think that these extreme measures taken by the government are completely disloyal. The fact that one person had a bigger impact on the country than the White House may be a threat, but it’s also a sign that the government isn’t doing their job. Nixon went against the values of America and this is what led to his demise.
John Lennon preached for world peace and that is why he was feared. He was different and people didn’t except him. I don’t think Lennon was a threat to the country’s safety; he was a threat to the president’s command.

Posted by Courtney Marlow at 09:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Beatles brought rock music to the United States in the mid 1960's. Their long hair and music was a revolution in American music. In addition one of the four Beatles would become a concern for the Ameican politics of the time during the Vietnam War. John Lennon said little about U.S. politics until after he left the Beatles, but his music clearly complimented the anti-war movement of the 1960's. His song "Give Peace a Chance" was music to the ears of the anti-war movement and distressful to the Nixon administration.

Music has always had a role in times of war. In WWII, music had a patriotic theme with songs like, "Yankee Doodle Dandee." The patriotic music was made to boost the morale of the public and the troops. Americans like Bing Crosby were part of the government plan to help support the war.

In the 1960's the Vietnam war became long and many soldiers died. It was not a popular war and the music of Lennon only complimented the peace movement of the Hippie generation. Plus, I think Lennon not being an American and having the obvious influence on the young people was very distressful to politicians of the time. He was as influential as Bing Crosby, but in an opposite way. While Lennon's music gave hope to some it hindered the government's ability to control popular thinking. The government tried to deport John Lennon where Crosby was seen as a patriot.

I wonder, if John Lennon were alive today, how would he see the war against terrorism? Would he or his songs have an influence on the terrorists to help "Give Peace a Chance?"

Posted by towar003 at 09:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am always interested in any history related to the Nixon years, and this documentary didn't disappoint. I thought that Lennon's fight was admirable, however somewhat unattainable. Mostly due to the paranoid regime of Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover that would go to what ever lengths needed for them to keep control of the country. Nixon and Hoover seemed to be so worried about anyone in America that was a perceived threat to their power, that I don't think anyone at that time had a great chance of making a difference. I don't think the fact that NIxon won the 1972 election has anything to do with Lennon's ability to change things, I just think he was in a card game with a marked deck. In those times, I don't think he had much of a chance.

I don't know that I believe that music has the ability to save lives, or make significant changes, at least not on a grand scale. IT can make a difference in individual lives, and can get a group of people together to try and make a difference and fight for a cause, but in any country, even a democratic one as seen in the US, there are still powerfull people running things, and their agenda is going to be followed through, at least until the next elections. People have the ability to make change, and music may be one cog in the process, but I don't think that music is ever the sole mechanism for change. The 1960's saw a huge counter-culture movement with its youth. Musicians such as Dylon and Lennon were part of this movement, but really it was the youth rebelling against authority. Granted, it was on a much grander scale, but none-the-less it still seemed to be the youth of America struggling to find their way.

Lennon, and the other leftist radicals, were dissenting against the war in Vietnam. Being a dissentor just means that they were non-comformists, it has nothing to do with their loyalty to the United States. The great thing about America is that people are allowed to have their opinions. They can disagree, or agree with the US government and still be loyal citizens. The '50s and '60s had government leaders who were very paranoid. Whether it was McCarthy, Hoover, Nixon, or others, the leaders of that time seemed to have it in for anyone who didn't fit their belief of what a true American was. They were narrow-minded, power hungry politicians who were overcome with communist paranoia. Those that disagreed with American politics were labeled as traitors or communists, even if it was not truthful. Unfortunately, as is commonly stated, history repeats itself. We saw it in recent years with the Dixie Chicks, and others, who spoke ou