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 3:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (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 2:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 | TrackBacks (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 9:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (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 9:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (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 9:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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 9:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (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 9:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (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 9:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (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 9:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (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 out against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. The Dixie Chicks weren't disloyal, and neither was Lennon. They were just in disagreement with the politics of the day.

I must say I didn't really get the point of the staying in bed for peace. I don't get what it proved, or was meant to prove. This doesn't mean Lennon didn't do his part, or that other got it and it was a successful move on their part. Others in the the movie seemed to think it was a big deal, I guess I just didn't get it. I did however get the movie, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Although I don't totally agree with Lennon's politics, I do enjoy his music, and find the whole Nixon era very fascinating. Good show.

Posted by bela0003 at 8:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week, we talked about the 1960’s, which is a period that has been defined as the time of “movements,� and particularly a time where, according to the Rock Pop, and Politics reading, “[…] 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.� We watched the movie The US vs. John Lennon this week, which told the story of John Lennon’s life after the Beatles, and how he was so outspoken when it came to politics. Throughout the 1960’s the issue of the Vietnam War was on everyone’s minds. As we discussed in lecture, the Vietnam War was different from any other war before it, because no one in the world knew who the enemy was. People in the United States didn’t like this war, because they believed that we were fighting an unnecessary war and that we should just bring back the troops and end the war. John Lennon was a major representative of this belief; he believed that we should have a peaceful revolution in order to end this war. He came up with many anti-war songs, including “Give Peace a Chance� which became the national anthem of the anti-war movement. Because of his antagonistic views of the government, he became a major target for them, and they would eventually try to get him deported (which they failed at doing).
The whole idea of what John Lennon stood for and how he displayed it to people was genius. My favorite anti-war movement that he did was “bed peace.� This movement wasn’t anything spectacular, but it made people think twice when it came to giving peace a chance.

Posted by clay0115 at 8:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The U.S. vs. John Lennon is an eye opening documentary that provides a concrete example of the two worlds of politics and popular culture colliding. John Lennon uses the media’s obsession with him to his advantage, becoming famous as not only a talented musician, but also a popular politician. The burning question that immediately comes to my mind is what caused this radical movement for revolution that was so powerful during the 60’s and early 70’s to slowly diminish and become almost non-existent for our generation today?

The differences of the effect of rock music on a generation of the 60’s compared to the effects of mainstream music on our generation today, are plentiful and far too evident. In the reading Music and Radical Politics, James Perone takes note of John Sinclair’s repetitive idea that, “Rock music is revolution.� The generations of the 60’s and 70’s were very aware of what they disliked about where things were going. Instead of just complaining to one another as so many of us is guilty of today, these people did everything possible to have their voices heard. For example, popular musicians such as John Lennon and Bob Dylan used their creative talents to connect with society and act as a spokesperson for millions of concerned citizens. Mainstream musicians of today are not getting involved in the political world and the needs of their fans like the popular musicians of previous decades.

However, this lack of drive for change is multiple sided. The listeners, people like you and me of everyday society are not walking the talk either. Too often do we sit back and complain about the turmoil that’s occurring in our world today, but rarely do any of us take any action to back up our concern. In addition, the quality of today’s media material is rapidly declining.

While the film The U.S. vs John Lennon is especially entertaining, it also provides us with a harsh reminder about the lack of passion from our generation’s various worlds of politics, music, media, and individuals of society.

Posted by munoz047 at 8:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Some people say that John Lennon was disloyal to our country, however I think you have to look at it from a different perspective than that. Lennon wasn't a citizen of our country during the time he was protesting the war. Some say that he could have given two shits about what was going on in our country. He was a lover who's heart was too big and he was too smart to sit there and watch the carnage in Vietnam and not do anything about it. What he was doing was just as beneficial to our country as the Black Panthers in the Civil Rights Movement. Being a dissenter of the war did not make him disloyal to the country. Multitudes of people were against the war, but they weren't a public figure. He had the power to at least try and make change. He said in the movie that he liked it here and that he didn't want to leave, so what would be the point in him trying to affect our country in a negative way. J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon were a ccccnew age brand of tyrants. The way they treated their own people was disgusting. There should have been a line drawn on what they were doing, how they were negatively affecting us. The stalking and wire tapping of the Hoover run FBI wasn't winning any of the American people over. I believe there should be a line when it comes to disloyalty to our country though. If you're willing to go to such great lengths as killing someone to prove your point, then there's a problem. What Lennon was doing was completely rational and he deserved to speak his mind. The whole free speech issue brings up a different level of what is appropriate or not. I am a believer in free speech and I think that is one of the main reasons why our country is so incredible. However when it comes to people protesting at gay soldier's funerals saying that they don't deserve war medals and telling their families that they are in hell, that pisses me off. Its one thing to disagree with homosexuality, but when you are standing out in front of a funeral or a gay soldiers family's home denouncing their son or daughter's service because of it, then there is an issue that needs to be addressed. During the 60's I would have done anything I could have thought of to show that I opposed the war. At no point did John Lennon cross the line with what he was saying. He knew what he was doing, and he was intelligent enough to use his fame to his advantage, to wake people up and let them see what the government was dragging them into. The only people who were being disloyal to the constitution were the people in charge in Washington. Namely Nixon, Hoover and McCarthy. My favorite John Lennon song is "Give Peace a Chance." Its lyrics were so easy to memorize, and its message was so clear cut, no wonder it became the anthem of the anti- war movement. He was brilliant, and he used the rights that the United States stands so firmly on to tear the government a new one. Although his message never stopped the war, it sure had the government shitting its pants up there on its high horse in Washington. Power to the people.

Posted by stor0245 at 8:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Some people say that John Lennon was disloyal to our country, however I think you have to look at it from a different perspective than that. Lennon wasn't a citizen of our country during the time he was protesting the war. Some say that he could have given two shits about what was going on in our country. He was a lover who's heart was too big and he was too smart to sit there and watch the carnage in Vietnam and not do anything about it. What he was doing was just as beneficial to our country as the Black Panthers in the Civil Rights Movement. Being a dissenter of the war did not make him disloyal to the country. Multitudes of people were against the war, but they weren't a public figure. He had the power to at least try and make change. He said in the movie that he liked it here and that he didn't want to leave, so what would be the point in him trying to affect our country in a negative way. J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon were a ccccnew age brand of tyrants. The way they treated their own people was disgusting. There should have been a line drawn on what they were doing, how they were negatively affecting us. The stalking and wire tapping of the Hoover run FBI wasn't winning any of the American people over. I believe there should be a line when it comes to disloyalty to our country though. If you're willing to go to such great lengths as killing someone to prove your point, then there's a problem. What Lennon was doing was completely rational and he deserved to speak his mind. The whole free speech issue brings up a different level of what is appropriate or not. I am a believer in free speech and I think that is one of the main reasons why our country is so incredible. However when it comes to people protesting at gay soldier's funerals saying that they don't deserve war medals and telling their families that they are in hell, that pisses me off. Its one thing to disagree with homosexuality, but when you are standing out in front of a funeral or a gay soldiers family's home denouncing their son or daughter's service because of it, then there is an issue that needs to be addressed. During the 60's I would have done anything I could have thought of to show that I opposed the war. At no point did John Lennon cross the line with what he was saying. He knew what he was doing, and he was intelligent enough to use his fame to his advantage, to wake people up and let them see what the government was dragging them into. The only people who were being disloyal to the constitution were the people in charge in Washington. Namely Nixon, Hoover and McCarthy. My favorite John Lennon song is "Give Peace a Chance." Its lyrics were so easy to memorize, and its message was so clear cut, no wonder it became the anthem of the anti- war movement. He was brilliant, and he used the rights that the United States stands so firmly on to tear the government a new one. Although his message never stopped the war, it sure had the government shitting its pants up there on its high horse in Washington. Power to the people.

Posted by stor0245 at 8:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The United States is a large and powerful nation threatened by such a small and simple-minded musician. This is certainly a portion of the premise of this week's film. John Lennon, a very successful and talented musician, was man who came to America and was very popular and influential in music. He used the spotlight he drew toward his rock band to illuminate his very straightforward ideal of peace. Richard Nixon and his administration were intimidated by this rock and roll star’s significant influence on the public. Nixon, at the time, was looking for support and motivation for a war in Vietnam and Lennon lead a great resistance against that plan. He promoted “bed peace, hair peace� and in that time he wrote and performed a song that was used like an anti-war anthem. In almost every way he used his music to denounce war and promote love and peace. Just like “Yankee Doodle�, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic� and “Dixie�, the Ben Arnold reading begins with a very significant statement, “American wars have always been fought to musical accompaniments.� Lennon does this with his song, “Give Peace a Chance.� I believe that when massive crowds of people congregated in government areas and repeated the refrain to this song that it affected Nixon and he was truly afraid of what Lennon could do to motivate people against war. The fear that Nixon had was shown when he tried to deport Lennon from the country on such charges like drug possession. He saw Lennon as someone who he could just sweep aside and with him out of the way Nixon could operate more freely with less conflict. Lennon was later granted citizenship and Nixon resigned. This is a very classic example of how the underdog stays resilient and succeeds and the figure in power is forced to quite and fails.

Posted by luli0004 at 8:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When a revolution starts against a higher power their will always be criticizing comments, no matter what the circumstances are, because there will always be a devil’s advocate. This character was displayed through one of the FBI agents that stated, “Anyone who didn’t like [America] could either shut up or leave that was the way, I think, all of us felt.� This of course can’t be displayed as the only opinion of the revolution, because others had a voice and used it. Not all of these voices were stating directly through a speech, but through music. 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 force into the realm of politics that helped them change what they were doing.

This mess of rock music created a force against the social norm with not only the children of this era, but of adults. John Lennon was the beginning of the revolutionary music, but it all seemed to start with the Beatles. It’s hard to think that 4 guys could change the world, but it happened. Even after John died his lyrics still lived on through having the revolutionary activist sing it in praise to hopefully get the government to declare peace on an unknown war. Rock music is also displayed as revolutionary in the movie, Pleasantville. They were told not to listen to the music, because it would change them from black and white plain people to colored revolutionaries. So in a sense rock music started the revolution and kept on living through today, to create one of the biggest genres of the Centuries.

Posted by carr0445 at 8:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The exchange between Lennon and the reporter for the New York Times in the movie was extremely important when viewing the movie and really the entirety of those times. Young people were speaking out in more numbers, and more vocally, than ever before, but the question is raised: Were they actually accomplishing anything? Did Lennon save any lives? While it is impossible to prove or disprove, I think any person that heard his music and then walked out and burned his draft card like we see in the movie was possibly saved by his anti-war lyrics. The truly interesting side of this debate though is not whether the protesters, the young of the world, believed they were making a difference (because they did believe it), it is whether the establishment thought anything of them. It is made clear both in the movie and in the readings that Nixon's regime was very worried about the impact of these protests and musical calls to action. It almost appears that the government's belief in the power of these protests are what actually gives them more power. If police do not beat protesters outside of the convention in Chicago, does their protest really receive any publicity? If the INS does not try to deport Lennon, would he have had nearly as much public exposure after his career with the Beatles had finished? Streets writes, "these enemies of rock and pop have achieved one 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." Did Lennon save any lives? I do not know, but I know through his actions and the actions of others like him this nation stood up and took notice.

Posted by drey0022 at 8:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

One memorable scene in The U.S. vs. John Lennon depicts reporter Gloria Emerson hecklng John Lennon in her upper-class, New York-accent, telling him he's made himself ridiculous. John's frank response was, "I don't care if it saves lives"; Emerson, clearly finding this even more ridiculous, shoots back: "my dear boy . . . you don't think you've saved a single life!"

Can music save lives? Marshall McLuhan writes: "only straight people-- honkies-- think music is superfluous, that it doesn't make any difference what you listen to, and their lives demonstrate their ignorance . . . For our generation music is the most vital force in most of our lives." In 1969 during Emerson's interview she was forty compared to John Lennon's twenty-nine, so clearly from different generations. Lennon grew up during the fifties when music was beginning to take on a new meaning and was producing during the sixties and seventies when, due to mass media, music was everywhere and, as MuLuhan says, a vital force in people's lives.

Emerson is remarking from a different frame of reference and we can't really blame her for being somewhat closed-minded and ignorant about the new level of importance music has taken on since the advent of Dylan and the Beatles. Yet we can blame her for being entirely wrong where her condescending remarks are concerned. If music can change lives, if it can inspire people to kill and take away other's lives, it can also save lives. Simply look at the footage of the people crying and gathering after Lennon's death: if he could impact so many people and his death could move them all to tears, it's not much of a leap to assume he probably added some new meaning to their lives and even kept some of them from suicide.

Posted by bergm150 at 7:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

John Lennon provided a necessary voice for the counter-culture movement, or revolution as it was called, surrounding the Vietnam War. Gloria Emerson’s comment “You don’t [actually] think you’ve saved a single life� [by writing and singing songs about peace]? accurately portrayed the skepticism of conformist America regarding Lennon’s ability to affect the masses. While many people opposed the war, what Lennon provided for the “revolution� was a voice and outlet for the youth of America. Lennon’s fame and lyrical prowess proved to be the perfect catalyst to promote activism against the war and the policies of the conformist government. While there can be no empirical measure as to what effect Lennon’s message had, I believe that his message did have a significant impact in that it acted as the antithesis to the poisonous propaganda circulated by the government. Had Lennon and other activists not been so vocal in their opposition to the war, who knows how much longer it could have lasted.

As Timothy Miller writes in “The Ethics of Rock�, rock music’s revolutionary role “lay in the purported ability of rock to expose the sham of Western culture and to change the life orientation, political and otherwise, of its listeners.� Rock music’s ability to speak to so many people is what made it such a potent social force, and is probably also why the government felt threatened by artists such as Lennon. Despite the better efforts of the government, rock as an outlet for expression far surpassed any propaganda of the government, and was a far more effective means for galvanizing the masses. This is why the Nixon administration feared Lennon because of his ability to affect public opinion. While Nixon deemed Lennon a traitor for his anti-war, pro-peace messages, the great irony is that Nixon and his administration are far guiltier of being traitors.

Posted by ande4849 at 7:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The counterculture and revolution of the 1960’s differed from any other revolution to date; not only was it a revolution of the largest age group in the country—the baby boom generation—but it was carried out “as a collective dream; it did not have policies and programmes� (Street, 244). This is why, many would contend, it became such a threat to the American government and the “established order.� As Tariq Ali stated in The U.S. vs. John Lennon, the idea that the “most powerful, imperial nation . . . could be threatened by a writer, an intellectual . . . is laughable.� However, when considering the context of the 1960’s, the nation’s leaders at the time were at odds with the majority—the 18-25 year old voters, an age group easily influenced particularly by, as Miller contends in the “Ethics of Rock,� rock and roll.

America at the time was going through substantial changes with the end of WWII, nuclear threats, the assassination of JFK, and a population boom. In general, many would agree that, “people need music to live,� and in a time of such significant change and turmoil, many people turned to music as a channel to express ideas and emotions (Miller, 75). In contrast to previous generations, rock and roll music of the 60’s generated energy with faster beats and lyrics that spoke to the problems which many were struggling with, which “fueled the cultural revolution because it was immediate, spontaneous, and total.� The music created sustenance for the younger generation, who were in great need of alternative “outlets for expression� (Arrigo). Consequently, the baby boomers looked toward the artists and musicians as their leaders and role models, which made John Lennon highly effective as an advocate for government reform and his message of peace. He was able to reach out and connect with the majority, which posed a strong threat to Nixon’s reelection.

The administration took several measures to prevent Lennon from speaking out and swaying the public opinion, including trying to kick him out of the country. Such measures, however, were unwarranted. Lennon was speaking out against a government that inaccurately represented the country’s initial goal of equality and freedom of speech. Eventually, he became a target of the precise issues that he was speaking out against, the problems that needed to be reformed.

Posted by riva0067 at 7:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The United States seems to have a long history of riding the wave of American Nationalism. This “patriotism� can be seen in World War I, World War II, the Cold War and the Korean War. If a citizen questioned the country’s exceptionalism or global domination, he or she was labeled as a dissenter. John Lennon’s politically charged and anti-war involvements in American foreign policy turned him into an enemy of the state. As the FBI agent commented in The U.S. vs. John Lennon, one may either remain quiet about his or her dissatisfaction with American politics or leave the country. Remembering the nation was built on ideas of free speech and democracy, the agent’s statement would appear to be in obvious contradiction to the Constitution. The founding fathers thought it especially important to have a means of critiquing the government to keep it in check, to maintain democracy and keep the voice of the people. Lennon’s attempts at questioning government authority through art, music and peaceful demonstrations follow the First Amendment’s freedom of speech platform.

Yet, Nixon’s administration must have felt threatened by Lennon’s ability to reach a large portion of young people world wide. Lennon was implanting un-American ideals into these youth. Street suggests the political right during the time felt Lennon and rock and roll would subvert traditional values, family life and capitalism (p. 243); the things that make America truly American.

Radicals like Lennon and Ono were called traitors by the government, though they were not actually Americans, for highlighting racial and gender inequality, anti-war sentiments and the like, resulting in greencard issues for these political stances (Perone p. 108). Disagreeing with government policies is not the same thing as being a traitor to the state. Open discourse is necessary for forming policies that accurately represent the people for which those policies stand.

Lennon’s tactics were questioned by disbelievers, like reporter Gloria Emerson, but that does not mean they were not successful in any respect. While there is not a direct cause-effect relation between Lennon’s politics through music and art and change in the United States, there is a link between his movement and awareness. Lennon created a venue for anti-establishment and anti-war attitudes to reach young people. Through his celebrity he allowed the counterculture to be heard by the rest of the conservative country. It gave people the chance to question choices made by those governing them.

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 6:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

What John Lennon was arguing for -- what he spent his own money on, spent his honeymoon promoting, and always advocated-- was simply peace. At one point in the movie, he simply speaks into a microphone, saying, "peace, peace, peace, peace, peace..." This uncomplicated message bothered many people who called it naive or impossible. What he was really getting at, though, was that it is only the world around us, the society that we have been brought up in that limits our concept of peace. His critics and detractors were merely bound to the world they knew. They considered evils like war and violence to be necessary evils. What Lennon was trying to get across was that there didn't have to be any necessary evils, there just had to be people willing to open their minds to peace. His music, while not truly successful at bringing about world peace, carries a lasting message that weighs on our minds today. Now, it may be true that, despite war prevailing, our perspective on what evils are necessary has changed. As long as the message of peace is preserved in thought and cultured down through generations, it will become more and more acceptable.

Posted by aretz008 at 6:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Music for many artists is a way to express their beliefs, values, or how they feel at a particular time or place in life. During 1970’s era in music, lyrics consisted of a lot of love hits along with political view points. I believe the lyrical messages reached out to people all over the world, making an impact in some form or another. For me personally music is a way to help relieve stress that comes along with the daily life of a college student. I am sure that I am not the only person that uses music and its lyrical content to get through tough and stressful situations. For John Lennon his music influenced many Americans his “anti-war� lyrics with songs like, “All You Need is Love� and “Give Peace a Chance�. These are just a few of the many songs that he wrote where he expressed his disapproval to war and killing. Lennon’s music transformed from boy band rock material to songs that became the backbone of “anti-war� protesting. Lennon was able to make people stand up to the government and convey their feelings toward the Vietnam War. 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). He put his lyrical music out there for anyone that wanted to hear his position on war. His music was embraced with open arms from the American people. I believe that many people needed some sort of hope for peace in our country and John Lennon was able to provide that for people of all different shapes and sizes simply through his lyrics.
Through out everything that had transpired John Lennon’s music was more then just good melodies and words that flowed together. They were words of hope and peace to the American society.

Posted by white968 at 6:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Gloria Emerson, the reporter from the New York Times, asked John Lennon “You don’t [actually] think you’ve saved a single life� [by writing and singing songs about peace]? I believe that music may have the ability to save lives, but I believe John Lennon’s lyrics definitely had the ability to make significant changes in the “real world�. Lennons creative music lyrics provided people with more comfort to speak out and stand for what they believe in, rather than just allowing the US government to continue on with its ineffective ways. I listen to specific bands and music genres depending on my mood and feelings, and music can even change my mood depending on the type of music I listen to. I use specific music to make me relax, so I agree totally that music can make significant changes to the way people act and react. This is reinforced by John Street, Street emphasizes that, “music has symbolic force, it deploys the power of language to create visions, articulate ideals and to form bonds� (pp. 245). Lennon used music in an effective manner to influence and promote “peace� in the world. Through his lyrics and actions Lennon showed his beliefs and emotions, convincing many people that the war is wrong.
Not only did he use the power of his lyrics he also used the power of his fame to promote world peace. Lennon was a Beatle and this fame automatically drew crowds to listen to what he had to say. Thousands of people gathered at his concerts and sang his lyrics, which emphasized the importance of peace. Young people also listen to famous people, because he was so famous he got the message out loud and clearly. Overall Lennon used many factors from his music in his ability to make significant changes in the “real world�. He used his lyrics, voice, creativity, and his fame to ensure that people understood his message. All of the factors helped bring about change

Posted by campb503 at 6:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the video we saw an interview between Gloria Emerson and John Lennon in which she stated “You don’t actually think you’ve saved a single live�. I think that this statement is as far from the truth as can be imagined. Pop culture has a huge sway over the beliefs and actions of the public. John Lennon and his outspokenness against the war most assuredly brought to the top of peoples minds problems with the war in Vietnam. In every anti-war protest there were likely hundreds if not thousands who if had not seen the outspokenness of John Lennon would not have been willing to stand up for what they believed in. In turn this increased demonstration allowed for even more people to see how upset others were about the war. John Lennon as well as other anti-war protesters were figureheads for peace. These figureheads without a doubt led to an earlier conclusion to the Vietnam War than would have other wise have occurred, prevented increased troops from being sent to Vietnam, and played a part in the decisions of those who fled to Canada in order to flee from the draft. I believe John Lennon’s actions were perhaps responsible for not saving a single life, but instead possibly thousands.

In class and the readings we discussed the fact that the media believed the government was extremely insecure to fear a simple pop artist as much as they did. Again I believe the media is showing there incompetence. What people believe is swayed as much by what they feel about the person saying it as they do about the subject being discussed. John Lennon was loved by so many people, that if even a fraction of those who knew of him listed to him based on personal feelings rather than facts, it resulted in a huge amount number of people taking up his beliefs. This same emotional factor is a huge contributor for people who were against the war and were on the border of protesting, and often in cases enough to drive them to protesting. A great example of how influential pop artists are is in politics today. In politics today both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are using pop artists to further there campaign ranging from Opera Winfrey to Chuck Norris.

Posted by andre368 at 6:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I personally believe strongly that music has a certain power to heal and bring about change. As far as having the ability to save lives, I'd be careful in how I would argue that point, but I could never say that it couldn't do it because I'm sure there are plenty of people who feel that music has saved their lives. As far as it being a niche for dissaffected youth, I think that it is much more grand than that. Music speaks to all people of all races or all genders and of all generations. I also felt that as a reporter, Gloria Emerson was awful to Lennon. It almost looked as if it were a persoanl attack for something he'd done to her or something.
The ability to actually change certain policy is so extremely difficult when up against the likes of absolute power such as President Nixon during that era. Clearly the people voted him in and he won by a vast majority, but music did bring about a lot of interest and focus to what the United States' government was doing. I don't feel that jis legacy is tarnished one bit because of the continuence of the war. He did what he felt needed to be done as an artist and I think it actually helps keep his legacy intact.
As far as the government feeling threatened by Lennon, I think that it's a great representation of the paranoia of the entire Nixon administration. They obviously knew he was a powerful pop culture icon and were worried that he would get in the way of their interests and that's why they had him followed as the film states. It clearly got to Lennon as well, as he says that he was scared in the film. They had his phones tapped, had him followed; to me, this is absolutely un American completely unwarrented. Protesting and questioning the government are two things that should be in the make up of all American's and I feel that Nixon's privated assault on Lennon was horrible, especially the deportation events. Questioning the government and their policies is something that makes an American an American. What Liddy and Nixon did by branding the leftists as un American is quite similar to what happened with Karl Rove and President Bush after the invasion of Iraq and the patriotism questions that would float around to those who disagreed. It's a nasty political tactic that can really ruin people.
I believe strongly that we as citizens have every right to speak out against the government. I find it so ironic that both President's Nixon and George W. Bush, members of a polical party that prides itself on smaller government and states rights, used this "shut up or get out" tactic. THAT kind of mindset is horribly un American. The ability to question and hold government accountable for their actions is the right of every legal citizen in the great country.

Posted by moros007 at 5:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
— Harry S. Truman

Although he was alluding to foreign powers during WWII, that the same words could apply to conversations about the dominant power structure that emerged during the cold war in the following decades is sobering. That these words are still relevant to us today is plain frightening.

Anthony showed us a clip of Edward R. Murrow’s famous See It Now broadcast a couple weeks ago in lecture. This was an example of how the relatively new (we’re talking 1954) medium of television could be used as a vehicle for giving a voice to the opposition of McCarthy’s communist witch hunt. It also serves as a great parallel to the emergence of rock n roll and John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance� movement, more than a decade later, illustrated in the documentary we watched this week. Albeit on a lesser scale than Lennon’s, the political fallout the immensely popular country band The Dixie Chicks experienced in recent years is a contemporary reminder of what can happen when the public at large passively accepts at face value the rhetoric and doctrine served to them by the establishment.

Our nation was founded on the principles of democracy and generations have sacrificed many things to keep this ideal a reality. Yes, there are obvious flaws and hypocrisies inherent in our system, but it is in through honest discourse and debate that these problems are to be repaired. One of the liberties that we Americans hold most dearly, above all else, is contained in the first Amendment to the Constitution. If the exchange of ideas (be they popular or not) is not possible, then what is?

Posted by skog0031 at 5:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

While I do not pretend to be an expert on modern history, the actions of Nixon in his presidency do closely resemble those of George W. Bush today. The idea that war is of benefit to the country is not a new idea, and has been politically explioted for decades. Yet the choices these two leaders made in getting involved in Vietnam and Iraq, to me, raises the larger moral issue of whether or not it is really blood for money.

Former New York Mayor Mario Cuomo echo's this thought in the documentary The U.S. vs. John Lennon when he commented on the treatment of John Lennon by the U.S. government. "The real disloyalty was Nixon's, Hoover's, ..." said Cuomo, and therefore not Lennon's in regards to the federal governments persecution of Lenon regarding his music and anti-war activism. It was a convenient excuse for the government to go after Lennon with the threat of his deportation, when in reality the real reason was Nixon's fear of losing power.

In a country where free speech is a right, it seems very much like dictatorship tactics for Nixon to try and stifle Lennon. Yes, Lennon used his power and influence in an attempt to sway public opinion, yet in reality he had no true authority to make a political decision. Nixon's fear of re-election and therefore losing power was reason enough for his going after Lennon and for the continuance of the Vietnam war. It is here where I believe Nixon and Bush are most similar. 9/11 being as tragic as it was, the United States engaged in a battle against terrorism. When it was determined that this was an enemy that could not be easily recognized and defeated, Bush invaded Iraq in a new strategic direction that would ultimately ensure his ability to remain in power in an election year.

Posted by char0018 at 4:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the long history of politics in the United States and ugly fallacy crops up time and again against
those who offer dissent and contrasting opinions. This has taken many forms. Mostly it's the idea that to criticize those in power is unpatriotic. Often times that backlash goes even father This idea is still presented today. I think it's wrong to think so. Reasonable policy requires a diversity of opinion. People that protest do so because they think the have a better idea. They believe that what they want is better for everyone. That goes for protests of all ideologies.

In the film G. Gordon Liddy arrogantly characterizes Lennon's opposition to American foreign policy as a "love it or leave it" scenario. Lennon clearly says that it is because he loves America so much that he offers the peaceful alternative. The whole "love it or leave it' has become a bumper sticker phrase in our current time. The idea that criticism is contempt for the American people was dusted off and used once again to portray modern protesters as being "un-american". In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Republicans especially used this way of thinking to put-down criticism for things like the "Patriot Act". I believe that the use of "patriot" in that phrase is obscene because it can be used to portray opponents of that legislation as being "unpatriotic". The idea being that This whole idea of patriotism has become a ridiculous talking point for the political right in this country, and I haven't seen enough resistance to the political debate being tainted by this thinking. One of our greatest traditions and tenets of democracy is the incorporation of differing opinions. It makes policy strong enough to protect and be nimble enough to adapt to change.

The real enemies of American are people like Nixon, J.Edgar Hoover, and G.Gordon Liddy, who caused great damage to the integrity of this country through their policies. Hoover sought to warp the constitution to fit his goals, where as Nixon simply broke the law again and again to keep his stranglehold on power. Our enemies, regardless of ideology cannot change the way we live. Only we can allow ourselves to abandon our freedoms, only we can erode away the force of progress. Nixon and Co. encouraged the repeal of freedom in this country and because of it, we are worse off.

I think it was plain unconstitutional for the president of the United States: Richard (Dick) Nixon to intervene in the life of a rock and roll star and to do so with a petty immigration court's decision. Nixon should have been impeached or
forced to resign solely for that reason. Forget Vietnam/Cambodia and Watergate for a moment and consider the insanity of a peacenik like Lennon being targeted for deportation from the United States.That alone is a powergrab that should have landed Nixon in contempt of Congress, or prison! But Nixon ,LBJ, and J. Edgar Hoover also wiretapped/kept intelligence files on: Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison, and Martin Luther king Jr.
The peaceful protest types were being intimidated by the American orthodoxy simply because they held reasonable but contrasting political and social views. Lennon advocated against the use of violence in advancing the movement for both philosophical and practical reasons. One is that to use violence to advocate peace is contradictory, and the other that peaceful protest is the easiest path to peace. This is seen through first how the WeatherUnderground was hated and feared. And in how quickly violent uprisings in the United States were put down e.x. = The Watts race riots.

That is why John Lennon's views have stood the test of time. Peace is the cause for all people and that is why it is defensible from all ideologies.

Posted by gonza275 at 3:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The U.S. vs. John Lennon was, in my opinion, an awesome documentary. I felt the film did a good job portraying the context of the 1960s and John Lennon's role within it. Lennon dedicated himself to anti-war activism and denouncing American foreign policy through peaceful means and effective communication. Lennon's opposition to America's foreign policy put him in direct conflict with Richard Nixon. In 1972, after Lennon had been publicly opposing Nixon's foreign policy for more than a few years, Nixon was reelected by a landslide. It was noted in the movie that Nixon's reelection was devastating to both John and Yoko. Because of Nixon's reelection, some have tried to argue that radical music and more specifically, Lennon's efforts, were simply "surface level movements" with no real impact. I strongly disagree. Bruce Harris, in his liner notes to Weird Scenes inside the Gold Mine, eluded to the following; "This revolution would not take place in the streets where it could be seen and stopped, but in every house, in every room, where it would never be found until the sides had already changed." Lennon's message struck home with America's youth more than any other demographic. Because of this fact, the realization of Lennon's efforts was only a matter of time. Let me explain, over time the young individuals who embraced what Lennon advocated were poised to take more prominent roles in society and start families of their own. As their roles within society became more prominent, Lennon's lasting message gained more strength. Also, the ideologies of "peace and love" were certainly passed on to the children of those who originally embraced Lennon's anti-war ideologies. So ultimately speaking, I'm arguing that as time progresses, the "youth" have a bigger and bigger impact and therefore Lennon's ideologies will take a bigger and bigger role within society. So, just because Nixon got reelected does not mean that his efforts were fruitless. It simply showed that more time was needed for the supporters of Lennon's message to carry the weight within American society to make a difference.

Posted by John Erck at 3:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think Gloria Emerson hit the nail right on the head when she asked the question, "You don’t [actually] think you’ve saved a single life?" to John Lennon. People can write and sing about all sorts of problems, but in the end, very few if any people are significantly moved by the music they hear. John Lennon was just one more in a long line of political activists to write music about their cause. I think of a famous saying, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" ... The people who listen to political music such as some of Lennon's work, and follow his examples of protest, were probably already doing so before discovering John Lennon (I use discovering for lack of better word, of course they had heard of him but didn't yet regard him as a political activist). Basically, he was preaching to the choir.

It is extremely sad to say this, but I have always felt that music can affect people, but usually in a negative way. The music preaching good deeds and love and all the good stuff goes largely unnoticed, while songs that glorify negative things get attention, which in turn sells records and influences more listeners. This is a different era though, and back then, music had more persuasion. People were often tied to the music they listened to, their personality predetermined by their musical preferences. I don't think music has the capability to branch out beyond its predetermined audience. Political activists will listen to political music, punks listen to punk music, etc...

Posted by hanse978 at 3:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Pop culture itself was still evolving as the new language of hope and change. John Street said, “Popular music is the product of political processes, as well as commercials and aesthetic ones� in his Rock, pop, and politics essay. John Lennon’s mission during the Vietnam War era was to help bring peace within the nations. He inspired millions by his songs such as “Give peace a chance� and “Revolution� (performed by the Beatles) that reigned on the ideas of a peaceful world where war does not exist. Due to this inspiration of peace, he was seen as a “traitor� and a “national threat� by many Americans, including Richard Nixon. Gloria Emerson, a journalist, was seen to try and convince as well as embarrass Lennon and Yoko Ono’s as she argues their anti-war campaign is ineffective. I believe that Lennon and Ono may have agreed that they have not saved a single life, but that was not the point of their protest. Bringing hope to war torn nations, that was the idea and winning the people over with his lyrics. John Street states “Words are not just ways or representing experience, but of expressing it they are material through which singers register emotion by lettering their voice explore the sound of the syllables. They may product a political meaning, but it may not the one that the written text suggests.� Lennon songs were not mocking the United States in whole, but encouraging many to change their views and become an opposition of war. It is a fact that John Lennon as made a change in the “real world� and I trust the fact today, he is looked upon as a hero for standing for what he believes in.
Though Nixon may have had a very successful presidential campaign, this did not stop Lennon. Hope shall not leave the mind of a genius as he continued to write and enthuse more into peace. I do not believe that Lennon should be considered a failure as this epidemic occurred. This one man along with Ono helped motivate millions to have peace rallies, war protests, and benefit concerts to help those that are affected by tragic events in America.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 2:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I definitely think that music has the ability to make a significant change in the real world. Personally, music gives me a chance to release much needed tension. It gives me a sense of relief from anger, sadness, and stress in my life. As I’m sure others feel the same way. Music definitely has the ability to impact the world. From the article Rock, pop and politics by John Street, “Music has symbolic force, it deploys the power of language to create visions, articulate ideals and to form bonds� (245). Lennon’s music did just that. He presented people the idea and vision of peace in America and he did this through his lyrics and actions. Lennon’s music was an outlet for the anger and hurt, him and many Americans had about the war. Through music, Lennon could express his views on the war to America and America would listen with open ears. People needed some sort of hope for peace and Lennon’s music provided them with that. It also provided people with a sense of companionship, a feeling that they weren't alone in this world. It definitely brought people together as one. As shown in the movie, people would join Lennon in his many protests to try to make a difference. He provided hope to the people and this is what America needed at the time. Through all this, Lennon’s music and music in general was and is able to help many people release their stress and anger throughout their lives.

Posted by ruff0046 at 2:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By: Elizabeth Bassett

With anti-war protests and the mounting Watergate scandal unfolding at the White House, the 1960’s and 1970’s were a time of upheaval within the United States of America. Representing opposite sides of the political ideals at the time, John Lennon and Richard Nixon found themselves in a constant struggle of opposing opinions over the Vietnam War.
In 1972, Richard Nixon won a landslide victory matched by only two other Republicans in the history of the nation. As Nixon was a staunch advocate for the war, Lennon may have been discredited with his efforts for peace upon Nixon’s re-election. However, it is important to remember that the Watergate Scandal played a role in Nixon’s re-election as his dealings were not entirely fair against his political opponents. It is uncertain if Nixon would have been re-elected or won by such a landslide vote had the Watergate dealings been nonexistent.
This in mind, I feel that Lennon made an impact in the push for peace at the time. John Lennon was a catalyst for change as he dared to be different and run against the cultural sands of the time. His words and simple melodies were stimulating and forced listeners to think about the current issues of war and peace. One of the best examples in the movie was the simple line John and Yoko started to sing in bed on their honeymoon of “Give peace a chance.� Although a single line, these words soon resounded in hearts and minds across the nation. Bringing mind and body together, music requires both brainpower of knowing the words and melody and the physical activity of breathing and opening one’s mouth to sing. As song requires various bodily processes, the simple line of “Give peace a chance� held profound effects as the melody played repeatedly in the minds souls of many Americans.
As Lennon impacted the radical music of his time, radical music influenced popular culture as it reflected the ideals of the times. Today, countless songs are written about loving, hoping, and losing hope after the love is gone as this is a central theme in our society today. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, peace was a central theme across the nation and Lennon was able to capture and promote this ideal through his music. Peace rallies and protests were abundant, often accompanied by songs and chants for peace, many of these written by Lennon. During times of trial, people need a leader and someone to look toward for direction. Finding himself under the spotlight as a Beatle, he was already a recognized authority figure which allowed him to have an even greater impact upon the public sector.
Although Lennon was not seemingly victorious in achieving peace in Vietnam, I still believe that his life held profound effects on the crisis overseas. Through his persistence and songs of peace, he brought awareness and urgency to the American people about struggles of the troops overseas. Individual ideals and lives were touched and thought processes reversed towards thoughts of peace through his work. This in mind, Lennon made a profound impact upon the generation of the time. His legacy continues as his songs for peace can still be heard on MP3 players and radio stations around the country.

Posted by basse044 at 1:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When Gloria Emersom asks John Lennon, "You don't [actually] think you've saved a single life" [by writing and singing songs about peace]? I don't entirely agree that he had the ability to save lifes, however, I do think he had the ability to influence Americans with his lyrics. He let the citizens of America know that it is ok to speak out against the government and he did this through his powerful songs. I believe songs can make significant changes if it relates to how the person feels at the moment. However, I am unconvinced songs can save lives, it can only influence them.

Do I think being a dissenter is the same thing as being disloyal? No, I do not think they are the same. I believe you can disagree with what your government is doing but still love the United States. I feel as though this is very gray area and one can't really draw the line anywhere, as least under these circumstances. I do not think there should be a line when it comes to "free speech" because that is our first amendment right to speak freely. I do not think John Lennon was out of line in any way.

Posted by pelt0071 at 1:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

What struck me as most relevant from this week's discussion was the connection between music and international politics. Specifically, the New York Philharmonic's trip to North Korea exemplifies a current illustration of the connection. While the intention is different in that Lennon wanted to stop a war that was already occurring and the Philharmonic is attempting to repair ties, the notion of using non state actors to appeal to the populace as well as the government is intriguing. The approach is similar and seems to appeal to a notion of music as a universal language. Maybe Emerson was right that Lennon didn't really directly save a life, but by shifting the discourse about war and using music to speak to people who otherwise may have been less politically aware inevitably changed the political landscape in our country.
It may seem that the situation in North Korea is radically different from that in the US during Vietnam, but several conditions allow the comparison to be made. Throughout its current regime, North Korea has resisted attempts by Western nations to intervene in its affairs, necessitating a new means of challenging the current system because the "traditional" means have been ineffective. In the US in the 1970's traditional measures like voting seemed to yield little results, so opponents turned to protests and consequently protest music. Another key difference between the two situations is the content of the music. While Lennon's music obviously contained lyrics that challenged key political situations, the orchestral music of the Philharmonic is much less revolutionary. But regardless of content, the orchestra functions as an ambassador to the nation by bringing them art and enabling North Korea to partake in what we define as beautiful. Perone suggests that one reason radical politics fails is because it isolates people who believe in the cause but don't embrace a radical means of approaching a solution (100). Thus, by engaging in a revolutionary tactic (engaging a non-state, cultural actor) but using non-offensive means, the Philharmonic's trip to North Korea may be more outwardly successful than Lennon's time in the US. Yet despite the differences, both examples demonstrate how music can have an enormous impact on the state of affairs within and between countries.

Posted by vieir013 at 1:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

5:00am- Wake up to alarm clock playing music from the latest Nine Inch Nails CD. 8:17am – Listening to the BBC radio broadcast on the local city bus. 11:19- Listening to calming music by SIA before two four hour labs. 7:56- Listening to a song from the Rent soundtrack before switching it to some Michael Jackson to exercise. 11:07- Listening to Opera before turning in. A typical day in my life has been full of music that fits the mood and fits the occasion. In a documentary titled The US vs. John Lennon Gloria Emerson asks, “You don’t actually think that you have saved a single life [by writing and singing songs about peace]?� Music has its differences amidst its listeners but in a society where IPODS have taken over, music has a way of salvation for the lifestyles of many.

John Lennon in a series of skits during the early seventies definitely wrote music that was thought provoking and music that saved the lives of people everywhere. One of John Lennon songs related to a man by the name of John Sinclair who was locked up for several years in ties to Marijuana. A concert titled “Free John Sinclair� was held in Chrysler Arena in Ann Arbor, Michigan with 15000 people in attendance. Three days after the concert John Sinclair was released from Jail. If he were imprisoned for the 10years he was facing, there would have been many changes to his life. Music has a great influence on society as a whole and some of its influences are even tangible.

I can honestly agree answer yes to Gloria’s question of whether or not music saves people lives. It offers more that just comfort for me but it lets me carry on a day with little worries and frustrations. It’s a way to just feel liberated and it has meaning. Every word is an expression that can be viewed differently whether it is 8:17 am or simply 11:07pm.

Posted by remy0004 at 12:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Forgive me, because this may turn into a rant...

I may be one of the few here, but I'm really skeptical of the effect of the whole anti-war music protest. I saw a lot of th demonstrations in the film and thought that they looked absolutely dumb. John Lennon was certainly a musical genius, but when he and Yoko teamed up, I don't know HOW they could have been taken seriously. Yoko really seemed to be just a little devil's advocate the whole time. In the old interviews shown, none of the reporters cared at all what Yoko had to say. The microphones and cameras were all focused on John, all the questions seemed to be addressed to John, and Yoko would just pop her head up and begin to say something, only to be cut off with a question for John. Apparently all she would do is come up with the crazy schemes that John would put into action. I couldn't believe it when John had the whole 'Newtopia' rant, asking for a spot on the UN floor, recognized citizenship, etc etc...I know it's all metaphorical, but it just sounds so stupid. I spent most of the film waiting for John to top himself with these insane ideas.

I really thought that G. Gordon Liddy came out looking like the only one with a level head. He seemed to take a no-nonsense approach to all the protests, and refused to give them any credit. I definitely enjoyed that because he seemed to be the only person in the film that wasn't brown-nosing John and Yoko. Because of that, he seemed to come off as the most believable person in the film. By being the one person going against the grain, what he had to say felt the most credible, and I believed him over the 99 people that were talking about how genius John and Yoko were. I really didn't think the government needed to focus so much attention on the anti-war movement. I bet that it was really only a small portion of the voting population that were actively campaigning against the war, it just seemed larger because of all the fuss they were making. When the quote came up that Americans could either shut up or leave, it really is a good way of summing up the feelings of both sides. It certainly seems like an extreme point of view, but it shows the hypocrisy of the anti-war movement. The government thought the war was the best course of action, and anyone who disagreed with them could shut up or leave. However, I'm sure the same stood for the protesters - anyone who agreed with the war should leave America because the war was 'so wrong'.

I agree with Street when he writes 'Music may still be able to change the world...', but I feel that it depends how the music is used. Concerts like Live Aid that work to use music to help improve the overall quality of life in the world are beneficial. However, concerts like the one held in Michigan for the convict (I forget his name...) seems subversive to any common good. The guy sold illegal drugs to a police officer, WHY would you treat him as some sort of political martyr? It's not like he's innocent. the music anti-war protest seemed like they were happy with stirring up trouble, and trying to make the government look like the ones in the wrong. Yes, the Kent State incident was tragic, but like they said, you have 18 year olds with guns being confronted by hostile protesters. They didn't shoot the students for target practice, for Christ's sake. I hate it when, in instances of fault on both sides, a refusal to acknowledge any sort of responsibility, and I think that sums up the anti-war protest's clash with the government. No one was right, but they refused to be wrong.

But that's just my two cents.

Jeff Batts

Posted by batts002 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"Anyone who didn't like (America) could either shut up or leave...that was the way, I think, all of us felt". I think this statement is bullshit and has unconstitutional implications. The First Amendment, as all of you know, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The First Amendment squashes the statement made by the FBI agent in the film. John Lennon, Abbie Hoffman, etc. all exercised their right to speak freely and petition the Government, and did so peacefully for the most part. The Vietnam War was obviously hugely unpopular...people didn't understand it, thousands of soldiers were dying, and for what? So that a small country in southeast Asia wouldn't be overtaken by the communist party? I think China and The Soviet Union should have received more attention from the government than Vietnam. But, I digress. The American public did not understand why we were over there and why so many of our soldiers were being killed and injured for this war. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States allows for people like John Lennon, and other peaceful activists, to speak out against gov't policy, war, or whatever they want to. To not exercise your right of free speech is more un-American than quietly obeying and remaining quiet, as was enforced in places like the USSR.

The people of the USA have the right and the DUTY to speak out against the Government. American's should not "love it or leave it". If people didn't protest or speak out, then the Government could do whatever it wanted because it wouldn't have to fear huge public outcry. It is the job of the American People to keep the government in check. If the people were indifferent and quiet about the Vietnam War, it probably would have gone on for years longer, resulting in more death and destruction. When I was growing up I was always told that if I see someone doing something wrong and don't do anything about it, then I am just as guilty as that person. When the American People know the government is not doing the right thing, it is our responsibility to make sure they know it, otherwise we are just as accountable.

Posted by smit1989 at 11:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When we began discussing John Lennon in class, the only knowledge I had of him was that he was a member of The Beatles and that my best friend in grade school used to have their pictures plastered over every wall in her bedroom. I was not aware of the substantial political power he had in regards to the government of the United States. It perplexed me to think that on December 10, 1971, when John Lennon sang, “You got to set him free� at the concert to free John Sinclair from prison, Sinclair was released the following day! I was not aware that John Lennon held such a great deal of political power based solely on his immense popularity.

John Lennon was very strongly against the Vietnam War that was proceeding during Richard Nixon’s presidential term. He sang songs such as, “All You Need is Love,� “Revolution� (he was only interested in a peaceful revolution), “Give Peace a Chance,� all in an effort to show his disapproval of war and of killing. He promoted love and peace and traveled to big cities to practice the “Bed-In�. John and Yoko did not leave their bed for seven days in an effort to promote world peace. Their motto was, “Stay in bed for seven days and let your hair grow for seven days.� They posted signs stating, “Hair Peace� and “Bed Peace,� and allowed the press to interview them as they sat in their bed. It was interesting for me in particular because I never understood where the term “hippie� originated from; I did not comprehend why “hippies� drew peace signs and spoke of love and grew their hair down to the smalls of their backs. I now understand all of these things – John Lennon promoted world peace and love during the troubling years of the Vietnam War and asked people around the world to join him in “letting your hair grow� for peace.

This movie was very eye-opening for me because it has allowed me to learn a great deal about who John Lennon truly was and has shown his incredible contributions for world love and peace in our war-driven society. John Lennon truly was a revolutionary, the first of his kind, and he never faltered from his undying vision for the world – Peace.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I don’t believe that music itself have such a dramatic effect on real world activities as some musicians believe. I think that there musicians intention is to make change, but often only work as support for movements or actions that would be held anyway. The music just mirrors the political climate. If the music did not exist the movement still would, because the circumstances still exists. Music was more of a narrator of the movement, as Lennon himself said, I’s an artist first and a politician second. They took a political movement and used it as inspiration for their own art. This can have an effect of members of a political movement; however I don’t believe that the music makes a direct effect on the outcome. In my opinion music can serve as a unifying factor for individuals for who have similar interests but have no reason to congregate or relate to each other. The standards and ideals that music believes it instills in the public but the public, even subcultures, have previously instilled ideal and the music simply plays to those. It gives activists anthems, mass communication material, and rallying tools to fuel interest and support for the cause. I believe that this is why government establishments feel threatened by politically invested musicians, not because they directly make change but their music or art can be used or distorted by those who wish to make change to create a community which could potentially overturn their authority.

Posted by swanx058 at 10:16 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout the majority of his career, John Lennon was a target of the highest levels of American politics based on his musical influence to fight against authority. Although Lennon had numerous followers worldwide, government officials, reporters, and many others questioned his political protests. For instance, in the movie The US vs. John Lennon New York times reporter, Gloria Emerson, questions Lennon by bolding stating, “you don’t [actually] think you’ve saved a single life� [by writing and singing songs about peace? While I wouldn’t necessarily agree that Lennon saved the lives of people around the world, I do argue that he influenced numerous people and showed them a glimpse of their responsibilities as United States citizens. Through his powerful and radical lyrics, Lennon was able to persuade people to speak out against the government and stand up for what they believe in. 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). John Lennon used his music to “navigate between the fears of the outsiders and the opportunism of the insiders� through representation of his political ideas (Street, 244).

Posted by eisl0005 at 11:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When Gloria Emerson asked John Lennon, "You don't [actually] think you've saved a single life" [by writing and singing songs about peace], she obviously didn't know the affects celebrities and their work has on people. There was an apparent affect of handfuls of people at that moment. Look how many people came and did silent and peaceful protests. Look how many people came out and sang with him. It's not like just anyone came out and sang those songs. At this point in time, people were either afraid of the government, going against it, and then having the FBI investigate them, or people would just be complete transcendentalists and violate the norms the government demanded.
The affect of celebrities continues today, just as strong if not stronger. The current political candidates who are hoping to become the next candidates for the presidential elections are using celebrities to get their followers to agree with their favorite celebrities and their political candidates. For example, Barack Obama had the support of Scarlett Johanson, who came the University of Minnesota to give her view points.
Celebrities are also very influential if they are running for a political position. Use Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Granted, my opinion is the Jesse Ventura didn't really know what he was doing when he actually got into office, but not all celebrities are just talk. I like the changes I have seen come out of California from Arnold.

Posted by woehl007 at 5:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the movie The US vs. John Lennon New York times reporter, Gloria Emerson, asks Lennon, “you don’t [actually] think you’ve saved a single life� [by writing and singing songs about peace? I think she is very wrong about the power of music and the effect it can have on people. I know that for me, songs can amplify my feelings at the moment if it relates to what I’m going through. Alternatively, it can change my perceptions and give me a whole new outlook. It can be very empowering and motivating. It also gives me a sense of connection in knowing that I’m not the only one going through something, that we all share the same experiences and are connected to the same fate. As Lennon says in his song “imagine�: “you may say that I’m a dreamer, but I am not the only one.� I think he was able to connect to the revolutionists and give them hope, that they weren’t alone in their struggle for peace and that if they all joined together, something could be done about ending the war.

Not only did he connect with the revolutionists on a personal level, but he was also reaching them on a political level, and the government at the time realized this and that he was becoming a threat. This is why he was put up for deportation. If he wasn’t making a difference and impacting people, then he wouldn’t have had the media and government so interested in him.

Posted by kenne404 at 4:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Music is a powerful tool because it is a form of expression and creativity. It is also extremely popular among society. I think that John and Yoko did amazing things for society and the troop’s moral. John used what he is best at, his voice and lyrical creativity, and put it to good use by speaking out against something that he did not agree with. I think his music influenced the change in ideas about the war and good have very well influenced the governments stand on the idea to help bring about change.
I do not think that Lennon could overcome people’s ideas of a leader who they thought was so very powerful, especially in foreign policy. I think that society thought that Nixon would redeem himself if elected again, but all he did was dig himself an even bigger hole and become one of the most disappointing and shameful presidents in U.S. history. The people voted wrong, but they did what many in society would have done at that time and still now, vote for the one in the lead. People do not want to vote for a ‘losing’ candidate. They want to put their vote towards someone who is popular and in the lead. How did Jesse Ventura get voted governor? He was a popular figure and in the ‘lead’ for the running.
Lennon’s efforts towards a change in Vietnam were so incredible that they will never be forgotten. He focused all of his time and energy for a cause that was meaningful to him and many in society. His efforts were not in vein. I think that he realized that there was nothing anyone could have done to influence such a horrible and immoral president.
The U.S. government felt so threatened by Lennon because they saw the way the public reacted to him when the Beatles arrived on U.S. soil. Entertainment had a very influential role on society and the public. It was an outlet for people to express themselves and have others to look up to.
The government stepped over the law to try to detain Lennon, but Lennon would not budge. He fought tooth and nails to stay in the country and continue his work. The government tried to deport Lennon because of a narcotics conviction that Lennon pleaded to. Lennon said that he was set-up in the sting operation and that he only plead out because his lawyer advised him to so that his name would not be dragged through the mud with a trial.
It is possible to have opposing views on an issue and not be disloyal. It is healthy for society and the human race to disagree with each other. There would be much less diversity if we all agreed with each other all of the time.
Freedom of speech is a constitutional right because we all should be able to say what we feel and believe. I do not think that Lennon crossed the line on freedom of speech. He was one of the few that actually invoked his freedom to express himself for a cause that he believed in.
If no one spoke out against the government there would a lot of things done that would have been extremely bad for society. Society would lose what little control they have in government decisions. We have to speak out to be able to influence and get what we want or what we deserve.

Posted by hanl0083 at 2:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I found the documentary on John Lennon fairly informative, as I had never really investigated or learned about his life. I didn't really like the way it was thrown together as a film, but the content was solid nonetheless. I think they somewhat overexaggerated Lennon's "power" or "threat" against the U.S. as compared to in-house left-wingers such as Abbie Hoffman, who in himself wasn't too big of a risk. To explain what I mean by this, I guess I have to describe my view on the late '60s movement as a whole. I feel the whole flower-power/psychedelic drug-induced side of this counter-culture movement was arguably detrimental to the ideas and ideologies put forth during that time. The gap of communication between the left and right was so great that neither would take the other seriously, not unlike today with the war. And the very fact that many of the hippies were stoned out of their mind probably didn't help in putting forth progressive ideas and movement for change. I'm in no way supporting the right here, especially Nixon and co., but I guess what I'm saying is in order to fight the system you have to fight it from within, if that makes any sense. The approach the left took at that time was clouded (sometimes literally) and was ultimately questionable in its success, despite the mind-blowing numbers and never-seen-again size of political rallies and so on. But to get back to Lennon, I had to admit that learning about his "Give Peace a Chance" song in this light really made the logic of it come to the forefront. It's such a simplistic notion, but a worthy one nonetheless. I felt his gimmicks such as staying in bed were a little misguided, but the man really had some worthy things to say on the war situation and other problems of the time. I don't doubt the Nixon/Hoover FBI were hounding him like he claimed, as many other activists of the time claim to similar forms of treatment. His greatest achievement, (apart from the song in my opinion), was what was made into the climax of the film--and rightfully so--the John Sinclair trial. Even I had to admit it was pretty impressive how Lennon's appearance at that concert pretty much released Sinclair--if Lennon had had that kind of consistent sway and influence he truly would've been a dangerous man to the right and the Nixon administration. I do feel that he was kind of a tool for Hoffman and others, but regardless, Lennon did make his impact much more so than any other of the Beatles (I prefer Paul, but obviously that doesn't really matter), and this documentary just adds to the already lush history of that impact.

Posted by Darth Nep0wix at 2:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

John Lennon made this whole ordeal seem so simple. Give peace a chance and pull out of Vietnam. Through their different protests and songs, John Lennon did seem to make and impact on some people. I think the reelection of Nixon came from the first protest of not voting and the lack of votes against Nixon. There is also the fact that a lot of his followers were of a younder generation. His music is something that still captures many people, and is still listened to today. Looking at some aspects of the readings, music influences many people and the following from the Beatles helped Lennon. His relationship with Yoko Ono, helped develop what he wanted to do and how far he was able to reach. I think that he was able to keep going and develop this fight for peace with her aiding him. This paired with people challenging him, like the reporter, he was not going to back down to people. When he was about to get deported, he fought harder for peace and himself. I do not think there could be anyone today that would capture people and politics they way that he was able to.

Posted by lile0005 at 12:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

While the actions of government officials toward John Lennon were ridiculous, they were provoked by a real threat; not to America, but to the pro-Vietnam war ideology such officials wished to maintain. As John Street points out in Rock, Pop and Politics, “some of the strongest claims for the political importance of popular music have been made by its greatest enemies.� The power of Lennon as a medium for a message is reflected in the obsession that Nixon, Hoover, and other government officials had to neutralize him. Lennon’s celebrity status, along with the invocation of rock and pop music to reflect and effect a revolution, gave him the ability to shape and promote a revolution through his political activities (Street, 2001).
Lennon was not a threat to America, rather, he apparently cared deeply about America and the world around him. As is taught in any basic social science class (anyone decent one anyway), dissent is the most important part of a democracy; the most loyal and patriotic act there is.
Lennon’s political activities were within the realm of free speech as they were entirely peaceful. One’s personal freedoms extend only as far as others’ freedoms begin; Lennon’s activities were not violating any other freedoms, they were simply promoting his view in a peaceful way. This is what made “dealing with him� so difficult for government officials. In Lennon’s words, “once they got you violent, then they know how to handle you.� “They� were never able to get Lennon violent, and instead were left grasping at ridiculous straws of calling him disloyal or a traitor.

Posted by mayxx145 at 10:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The John Lennon documentary was very eye-opening because I’ve heard those songs so many times – “Revolution� and “Imagine� – and never really considered the impact Lennon’s songs and actions had on America at that time.

Like we saw in the week 3 lecture and Sahara, during WWII any public forum was edited by the OWI to make sure it was in support of our country and the war. Then came the Vietnam War, and a different attitude took over. There was no attack on our country, and many people were confused and upset that we had troops in Vietnam. All of a sudden people like Lennon, Hoffman, and Rubin weren’t afraid to expose the injustice that was occurring. As Perone discusses in “Music and Radical Politics,� Lennon even goes as far as to compare what was going on in the US to Germany around WWII. His message in the radical political Sometime in New York City album says, “Don’t think they didn’t know about Hitler,� which was in reference to how the German officials kept the deaths of millions of Jews a secret from the citizens so people would support Hitler.

I don’t believe Lennon’s efforts were at all in vein. He was one of the most popular people in the world and wasn’t even an American citizen – he was just so passionate on creating a peaceful, just world. In one scene of the documentary he said something along the lines of, “this is not me, this is just an image.� People might have thought he was crazy, but I think he just knew that was the easiest way to get to people. Although his efforts weren’t considered successful after Nixon was re-elected in 1972, I believe there was a lot gained through his form of protesting. Lennon gave young people a voice. There were many teens and young people who became very politically active during this time. Also, I don’t believe Lennon’s only goal was to prevent the re-election of Nixon. His efforts to get John Sinclair out of prison through the concert worked. I think all of his other protests, songs, and speeches were just too vague to get anything accomplished. “All we are saying is give peace a chance,� was the song that he chanted. He didn’t give specific goals, or work to get anything changed, he just wanted people to be aware of what was going on. Lennon wanted Americans to know that they had a right to speak up and protest for what they believed in, and he undoubtedly succeeded at doing this.

Posted by osbo0100 at 3:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ben Arnold talks about the history of music and war, and how for every war there was songs wrote or played during it. I think that music is an important tool in war times. Lennon was very influential when if came to the music regarding Vietnam. I truly think that he did save lives with how he approached the revolution. All you have to do is look at the gathering and the concerts that were set up by him. Thousand upon thousands of people gathered and sang for peace. I think the fact that he was a Beatle helped him a lot. Young people listen to famous people. Because he already had star power he could get the message out better than anyone else.
This obviously scared the government. They were trying to fight a war that Lennon was protesting. Both sides knew it was a mistake to be there; it’s just like Iraq. If you ask the majority of the population why were there they wouldn’t know how to respond, not because of their incompetence on the subject matter but because we should not have gone over there. And the government does not admit to their mistakes, so instead of getting us out of Vietnam they would get rid of Lennon, the person fueling the mass protests.
In my opinion the government will always be corrupted in some way, and because they run the show, their going to get away with it. Like spying on people and putting them in jail for being a traitor to the U.S. for not supporting the war. I think it’s our responsibility as citizens to speak up when something is not right. We should not be punished for speaking out against the government in a country who was based on the ideal of freedom of speech. If this were going on today I would probably be in jail right now. Every chance I get to bash the Bush administration I do. I don’t think the “leave the country or shut up� is a good theory. It’s not fair to kick us out just because the administration is doing a shity job.
In the documentary Sicko by Michael Moore, they were in France talking about health care, and when he interviewed some of the citizens they told him that the government is sacred of the people. If things aren’t going the way they want it, protests and riots are thrown. In the U.S. the people are scared of the government. Our government is supposed to be for the people, and by the people. It was very obvious that the people were for John Lennon, yet our government tried to kick him out of the country because he was promoting peace.
It really says something about who’s running the country when they are against PEACE!

Posted by robak003 at 12:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

To say that music of the 1960s and 70s was just a niche for disaffected youth is a lie. If it were not, the US government would not have been so concerned with terminating John Lennon’s visa so they could deport him from the country after he started a large peace movement against the Vietnam War. The song “Imagine� by John Lennon promotes equality and ideas of communism, like in the line “Imagine there’s no heaven, and no religion too.� This came about during the cold war with the USSR, which would have threatened the US government because Lennon had so much power over the thoughts of the American people. Some artists had too much of a radical leftist view, such as MC5. In the Perone article, “Music and Radical Politics�, it mentions punk bands having a “kill for peace� attitude and wanting a “complete revolutionary overthrow of the US government� (100). Their music was loud and violent making it very different from the sounds of bands like The Beatles. The article also mentions that artists like MC5 hardly sold any records compared to the sales of The Beatles. This goes to show that musicians with enough fame could have the American public follow them on any political movement, as long as it was somewhat rational. Proof that Lennon’s views were rational can be described by the Beatles’ song “Revolution�, written by Lennon. He claims that revolution does not have to be brought about by violence, and that change can be brought about peacefully. I have a friend whose dad said the only time he has ever cried was when John Lennon was killed. These kinds of actions speak louder than any arguments saying that music has a large effect on creating peace.

Posted by kuni0018 at 8:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It’s quite amazing the transformation that the Beatles themselves took through the ages and then see them after they broke up. Back in the early 60’s they were a mop-top group who only as John Lennon later stated sang about superficial things such as girls and puppy love. According to the video that we had watched last week; the history of rock and roll, it was after Lennon met Bob Dylan did he realize that he should be writing more politically active songs.

One part I found very interesting was when the reporter Gloria Emerson asked John whether he actually thinks that he saved any people by writing and singing songs about peace. Though I don’t agree entirely with all of John Lennon’s beliefs I do agree that he undoubtedly influenced if not saved any people’s lives. He surely knew this; the media, millions of people across the world were obsessed with everything that he did. Instead of singing of “superficial� things he knew that if he sang politically charged songs he would surely make a difference.

I really believe that music has had an effect of the beliefs and thoughts of Americans. If we look relatively recently bands such as Alice in Chains, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden dominated the early 90’s with their grunge rock. Rage Against the Machine sang of worldwide issues from American wage slavery to military sieges. Due to people such as Bob Dylan and John Lennon’s and their well-known political activism I believe singers and bands now are more vocal when it comes to voicing their opinions on specific things. It is evident that one can look at the musical acts of the time and by analyzing their lyrics could have a pretty good idea of the social issues around them during that particular era.

Posted by dhill004 at 3:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Christina Johnston – Lennon
When looking at the interaction between music and political influence, it becomes imperative to realize the power that a popular artist has when composing the sound, lyrics, and tone of a song. Lennon’s association with Ono, and disgust for the violent actions in Vietnam set him up to be viewed by the government to be a political ‘other,’ as well as a considerable threat. This poses the question, that if the statement made by Gloria Emerson on the New York Times was indeed true, and Lennon made no difference in American lives; then why was he viewed as such a threat by the US government?
He was such a threat because of the influence which he earned through his early years of success and fame. If Lennon was just an average Joe protesting, he wouldn’t receive nearly the level of national attention that he did. Musical artist have proven Emerson’s accusation of the nullity of popular culture on American lives wrong countless times. For example, Bono is raising millions of dollars in the fight against AIDS through his music and his stance on the issue, and is directly affecting thousands of lives, while raising awareness for the cause. Lennon accomplished a similar feat in that; he provided a look into an alternative to the war and loss that Americans were experiencing. If nothing else, he got people thinking about why we occupied Vietnam, and as a result, people developed their own opinions about the ideals he was promoting in his music. We are by no means out of control of our own thoughts as an American culture, but the simple song about change and peace has the power to expose us to a new way of thinking, from which we can develop a stance. It’s very ironic how the film shows the hypocrisy of Nixon, being that he was thrown out of office for activities which were clearly “un-American,� when he so adamantly pointed the finger of blame towards Lennon.

Posted by joh03704 at 2:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

1960s America was a time in which social movements such as the woman's liberation, the civil rights movement, and various rallies against the Vietnam War were taking place. One of the most controversial issues of this time was the Vietnam War. Some say that this "un-patriotic war" divided the country because it was not as easy to rationalize retaliation as attacks such as Pearl Harbor or 911. Thus many were against the war, but no one more so that John Lennon.

The documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" sent a quality message about peace and the need for change, which continues to be an issue today. Much like many thought the Black Panther party of the 1960s was dangerous because they carried guns; many thought that because Lennon promoted revolution, he promoted violence. James Perone, author of "Musical and Radical Politics," supported this notion stating, Lennon's song "Revolution No I" is directed at someone who is calling for a violent overthrow of society." However, after watching the film it is clear that John Lennon wanted revolution through peace and the primary reason Lennon and the Black Panther party were feared was not because they were violent but rather because they "stood up to power."

In the end, it was ironic that President Nixon, after working so hard to monitor Lennon, resigned from office because of his own disloyalty to the country. No one can argue against "peace being patriotic" and if the government would have listened to Lennon they would have realized that "All [he] was saying [was] give peace a chance."

Posted by dollx040 at 10:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

John Lennon had a very different way of getting people to listen to him. Instead of causing violence or destroying things he used his musical talents to speak to people. Lennon and Yoko Ono were two of the most important anti-war activists of their time. In the film when Gloria Emerson asked Lennon if he thought his music actually saved a life, he replied yes. I agree with Lennon, because without all of their anti-war propaganda the war might have lasted much longer than it did. Yoko Ono and Lennon did many things to try and raise awareness and peace in the United States and around the world. One that caught a lot of attention was the “Bed In� where they sat in bed for seven days. Many reporters came to see them, and around the country people began to think peace was an option. Besides things like the bed in music was their most powerful communicator was their music. Music has a way of reaching to a lot of people that words can’t get too. They wrote many songs that people could relate too. A lot of people were confused about why we were fighting the war, and Lennon’s music gave them something to latch on too. Music is not just something that rebellious youth enjoy, it attracts all kinds of people and does have the ability to save lives.

If you talk about music in the context of today’s world, there is a type of music for everyone. There are so many different genres with different rhythms and different beats. This versatility of music gives it the ability to save lives. There is music for every kind of feeling and mood. For people over seas, like today in Iraq, and then in Vietnam, music can help keep them sane. It can give them an out for all the frustration, anger and fear that they feel. For these reasons I believe music does have the ability to save lives, and John Lennon was a huge factor in saving lives with music.

Posted by elmxx014 at 10:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When it comes to questioning whether or not John Lennon was politically influential during the 60's brings up a very interesting question and I think the answer is yes and no. Why yes? When it comes to political theories such as elitism and pluralism Lennon played a very unique, political role as being an artist. In some ways he was viewed as an elitist because of his easy access to the media, financial resources and faithful followers of his musical career. In some ways, I view him as a pluralist due to his strong opposition to the majority of elitists at the time and how he called upon those citizens who agreed with his views to exercise their rights, such as freedom of speech, their pluralist power, in order to sway political power in the movement's favor. Lennon's influence was successful in the release of Sinclair, but failed when Nixon was reelected president, hands down. Political power and music are "ultimately linked" (Street 253). For example, it is interesting that it is actually political policy, the constitution, that empowers people to make music to influence people, in other words exercise their freedom of speech. So, I definitely think that political figures see musicians, who oppose their views, as threats. I think censorship of all different types of mediums arose from this. But, after Nixon's reelection, Lennon and his music were no longer seen as much of a political threat. I think this could be due to the fact that Lennon considered himself an artist first and a politician second. And also because Lennon was radical and associated himself with radical people. I wasn't alive during the 60's, but I don't think everyone was a radical leftist, otherwise it wouldn't be considered that radical. I do believe that the majority of the people were middle class working people who heard his messages, but didn't care to join the revolution.

Posted by cros0189 at 10:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week I will ignore the question and instead use this precious webspace to note that I am protesting the comically small size of our classroom. I urge the other students in the class who feel the same way or are cramped and uncomfortable to join me, as all we have to lose is one tiny mark on our grade. There are 16 weeks in the class, I ask that you risk just one in hopes that we can get a better, larger, more open room to watch movies in.

Posted by kupp0012 at 8:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)