Politics Ken Loach vs. Thom Yorke

Forums New posts
Brainwrong said:
Why is Ken being such a stampy footed twat about this?

Radiohead's Thom Yorke responds as Ken Loach criticises Israel gig | Music | The Guardian

The Trump / America comparison is a pretty astute comeback from Yorke, if you ask me.

Thoughts?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If they want to play in Israel it's up to them. I don't like what the Israelis are doing, I don't like Americas involvement all over the world, I don't like the fact that Britain subjugated the people of many many countries and bent them to their will through sheer brutality. Should Radiohead never play in America or GB either?
 
The definition of cultural Marxism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
was the boycott of Apartheid SA not a significant part of over turning that regime? can see both sides of the argument here but ultimately its down to radiohead.
 
gun ainm said:
was the boycott of Apartheid SA not a significant part of over turning that regime? can see both sides of the argument here but ultimately its down to radiohead.
Click to expand...

Graceland by Paul Simon did more than the boycott ever did. It had much more of an impact over there (for the people there) than anything we did over here anyway.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Brainwrong said:
Graceland by Paul Simon did more than the boycott ever did. It had much more of an impact over there (for the people there) than anything we did over here anyway.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What an album, definitely in my all-time top 5. Some great videos of PS performing this album in Africa kicking about on YouTube
 
Brainwrong said:
Graceland by Paul Simon did more than the boycott ever did. It had much more of an impact over there (for the people there) than anything we did over here anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

by what measure K? incidentally the boycott of SA wasn't 'Marxist culturalism' but first proposed by an English priest - Rev. Trevor Huddleston who wrote “I am asking those who believe racialism to be sinful or wrong … to refuse to encourage it by accepting any engagement to act, to perform as a musical artist or ballet dancer…”

clearly its hard to quantify how much influence the Christian inspired boycott had but it certainly kept the issue visible particularly from the 1980s onwards. The ANC I believe are on record as citing the boycott as instrumental in bringing down the apartheid system and they'd be better placed to judge than me.

personally I think the apartheid comparison is more valid than those that'd equate the occupation with American foreign policy in Iraq (for example).
 
gun ainm said:
by what measure K? incidentally the boycott of SA wasn't 'Marxist culturalism' but first proposed by an English priest - Rev. Trevor Huddleston who wrote “I am asking those who believe racialism to be sinful or wrong … to refuse to encourage it by accepting any engagement to act, to perform as a musical artist or ballet dancer…”

clearly its hard to quantify how much influence the Christian inspired boycott had but it certainly kept the issue visible particularly from the 1980s onwards. The ANC I believe are on record as citing the boycott as instrumental in bringing down the apartheid system and they'd be better placed to judge than me.

personally I think the apartheid comparison is more valid than those that'd equate the occupation with American foreign policy in Iraq (for example).
Click to expand...

Purely from the perspective of the black South Africans at the time.

I blethered about this on the other Radiohead thread I'd forgotten about, a while back!

Luvvies tell Radiohead to not play for the Jews

Me said:
Read a fair few South Africans telling us to fuck off with our pish and realise that the boycotts back then did fuck all to improve the abolition of apartheid, if anything, it made it worse and the ultra conservative powers in control were pretty happy about these bloody hippies not being in the country and made the oppressed south africans feel utterly cut off and even culturally deprived. Would have helped more to tour SA and spread the message live and in interviews rather than throw a Geldof hissy fit. Paul Simon did more, taking flack, but touring and recording Graceland with actual black folk than any of these student union boycotts ever could or did.
Click to expand...

So, that doesn't really cover your part about the initiation of it being highlighted. And, mine's is really another facet rather than the whole.
 
Brainwrong said:
Purely from the perspective of the black South Africans at the time.

I blethered about this on the other Radiohead thread I'd forgotten about, a while back!

Luvvies tell Radiohead to not play for the Jews

So, that doesn't really cover your part about the initiation of it being highlighted. And, mine's is really another facet rather than the whole.
Click to expand...

I think its at least debatable what anti-apartheid South Africans thought of the boycott? Peter Hain is worth listening to on this - as indeed was a certain Mr N Mandela

the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) had kept the flame of freedom flickering. Soon it was lit by our militant protests, which stopped white South African rugby and cricket tours in 1969-70. The country had been forced into global sporting isolation. On Robben Island, brutal white warders, all fanatical rugby fans, vented their fury on Mandela and his comrades at the ostracism of the mighty Springboks, unwittingly communicating a morale-boosting message through the news blackout. Barclays Bank was forced to withdraw from South Africa – a humiliation in the face of the AAM's "boycott Barclays" campaign.....
Madiba never forgot those hundreds of thousands of activists who rallied to the Anti-Apartheid Movement. "Except for all of you, I might not be standing here, a free man today, and our people would not be free," he always told us. Not only the AAM's indefatigable executive secretaries, first Ethel de Keyser and then Mike Terry, but also the ordinary citizens who did their bit by boycotting South African oranges, wine and produce, should be proud.

from Nelson Mandela and the Anti-Apartheid Movement | Peter Hain | Opinion | The Guardian

the above and indeed my memory from the time having been interested in South African politics kinda leads me to conclude the boycott was a key part in defeating apartheid, but interested to know what the black south Africans you've spoken to/read of have to say on the matter.

for anyone - before we get the usual anti-semite accusation - were boycotters anti-boer bigots?

ps all this is not to (necessarily) decry Paul Simon's Graceland - its a decent record - I think he was naive/foolhardy to ignore the ANC against advice in the run up to the recording so for me there are clear pro's and cons of his effort. doesn't mean I agree he did more to end apartheid that anyone else ;P
 
Last edited:
gun ainm said:
I think its at least debatable what anti-apartheid South Africans thought of the boycott? Peter Hain is worth listening to on this - as indeed was a certain Mr N Mandela

the Anti-Apartheid Movement (AAM) had kept the flame of freedom flickering. Soon it was lit by our militant protests, which stopped white South African rugby and cricket tours in 1969-70. The country had been forced into global sporting isolation. On Robben Island, brutal white warders, all fanatical rugby fans, vented their fury on Mandela and his comrades at the ostracism of the mighty Springboks, unwittingly communicating a morale-boosting message through the news blackout. Barclays Bank was forced to withdraw from South Africa – a humiliation in the face of the AAM's "boycott Barclays" campaign.....
Madiba never forgot those hundreds of thousands of activists who rallied to the Anti-Apartheid Movement. "Except for all of you, I might not be standing here, a free man today, and our people would not be free," he always told us. Not only the AAM's indefatigable executive secretaries, first Ethel de Keyser and then Mike Terry, but also the ordinary citizens who did their bit by boycotting South African oranges, wine and produce, should be proud.

from Nelson Mandela and the Anti-Apartheid Movement | Peter Hain | Opinion | The Guardian

the above and indeed my memory from the time having been interested in South African politics kinda leads me to conclude the boycott was a key part in defeating apartheid, but interested to know what the black south Africans you've spoken to/read of have to say on the matter.

for anyone - before we get the usual anti-semite accusation - were boycotters anti-boer bigots?

ps all this is not to (necessarily) decry Paul Simon's Graceland - its a decent record - I think he was naive/foolhardy to ignore the ANC against advice in the run up to the recording so for me there are clear pro's and cons of his effort. doesn't mean I agree he did more to end apartheid that anyone else ;P
Click to expand...

This is a decent piece: Paul Simon's Graceland: the acclaim and the outrage | Music | The Guardian

Then the PR battle swung the other way, thanks not to the ANC, but to leading black South African musicians who had been closely associated with the anti-apartheid struggle. Hugh Masekela, exiled from South Africa because of his attacks on the apartheid regime, had known Simon since the 60s; he had appeared alongside Simon and Garfunkel at the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival. He suggested that they tour together, in a show that would include an array of black South African musicians, including the country's finest female singer Miriam Makeba, and that songs from Graceland should be performed alongside black South African music.

Masekela, always an outspoken rebel, explained why he was co-operating with Simon and not condemning him. He was delighted that the Graceland tour was bringing black South African musicians together and giving their music global exposure. "South African music has been in limbo because of apartheid," he told me. "Exile and the laws have parted us and caused a lack of growth. If we'd been free and together all these years, who knows what we could have done?"

I'd make a case for his contrarian approach being reasonably large player in the whole situation via what it came up against and the dialogue it created. Plenty black South Africans also thought he was a prick for going against the ANC, I'll concede!

However...

"...Even as political opposition grew, the white government of South Africacontinued to be supportive of Graceland, defending the album as a symbol of "'how silly cultural sanctions are.'"123 Certainly, the government saw Graceland as a strong tool in
its attempts to solidify the Separate Development politics, but while it supported thealbum for its own purposes, its plan backfired. By giving airplay to Graceland, the whitegovernment supported "the fusion of White popular music with indigenous Black popularmusic," leading to the "breaking down of social barriers."124 For years, whites and blacksof South Africa had been separated, but the government's changing policies on blackSouth African music encouraged the development of black culture and helped blackSouth Africans to gain a voice in a country where they had been held silent for decades.
The strong impact of South African music grew in the 1980s. Neo Maumzana ofthe African National Congress saw popular music as a force "'strengthening the people intheir resistance.'"125 Graceland enabled black South Africans to reach an audienceoutside of their townships. Ray Phiri, guitarist on Graceland, labeled the album as "thebest thing that ever happened" because Simon enabled musicians to let "the world knowthat [South Africans] also have something to say” through their music.126 The Pan-Africanist Congress echoed Phiri's sentiments, calling Graceland an agent in "helping theoppressed people in South Africa by expressing their culture to an internationalaudience."127
 
HenryLB said:
"I'd like a false equivalence please, Brian."

"How big?"

"One I can see from the $#@!ing moon."
Click to expand...

ha - think you misunderstand my point - see below :lookaround: the equivalence of US/UK foreign policy that Yorke (and others) draw is perhaps more worthy of your hilarious retort =)

- - - Updated - - -

Brainwrong said:
This is a decent piece: Paul Simon's Graceland: the acclaim and the outrage | Music | The Guardian

Then the PR battle swung the other way, thanks not to the ANC, but to leading black South African musicians who had been closely associated with the anti-apartheid struggle. Hugh Masekela, exiled from South Africa because of his attacks on the apartheid regime, had known Simon since the 60s; he had appeared alongside Simon and Garfunkel at the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival. He suggested that they tour together, in a show that would include an array of black South African musicians, including the country's finest female singer Miriam Makeba, and that songs from Graceland should be performed alongside black South African music.

Masekela, always an outspoken rebel, explained why he was co-operating with Simon and not condemning him. He was delighted that the Graceland tour was bringing black South African musicians together and giving their music global exposure. "South African music has been in limbo because of apartheid," he told me. "Exile and the laws have parted us and caused a lack of growth. If we'd been free and together all these years, who knows what we could have done?"

I'd make a case for his contrarian approach being reasonably large player in the whole situation via what it came up against and the dialogue it created. Plenty black South Africans also thought he was a prick for going against the ANC, I'll concede!

However...

"...Even as political opposition grew, the white government of South Africacontinued to be supportive of Graceland, defending the album as a symbol of "'how silly cultural sanctions are.'"123 Certainly, the government saw Graceland as a strong tool in
its attempts to solidify the Separate Development politics, but while it supported thealbum for its own purposes, its plan backfired. By giving airplay to Graceland, the whitegovernment supported "the fusion of White popular music with indigenous Black popularmusic," leading to the "breaking down of social barriers."124 For years, whites and blacksof South Africa had been separated, but the government's changing policies on blackSouth African music encouraged the development of black culture and helped blackSouth Africans to gain a voice in a country where they had been held silent for decades.
The strong impact of South African music grew in the 1980s. Neo Maumzana ofthe African National Congress saw popular music as a force "'strengthening the people intheir resistance.'"125 Graceland enabled black South Africans to reach an audienceoutside of their townships. Ray Phiri, guitarist on Graceland, labeled the album as "thebest thing that ever happened" because Simon enabled musicians to let "the world knowthat [South Africans] also have something to say” through their music.126 The Pan-Africanist Congress echoed Phiri's sentiments, calling Graceland an agent in "helping theoppressed people in South Africa by expressing their culture to an internationalaudience."127
Click to expand...

so as I said I mixed bag in terms of impact but I think its hard to sustain that Graceland did more than the boycott ever did....btw I probably wouldn't go so far as to condemn Simon (like Dammers did at the time for example) I'm not anti Graceland in that regard. Hindsight probably helps..

my point in raising the AAM is not to say that 80s SA is the same as 10s Israel but to say that if you believe that the Israeli occupation is 'bad' then cultural boycotts can be an effective means of pressurizing a govt. IF you advocate such a policy its a legitimate conversation to have with Radiohead and not 'Marxist culturalism' whatever that might be. BTW I would not condemn Radiohead for playing Tel Aviv but for reasons given above I'd probably join the voices of those who'd discourage them from doing so....? My view would be its important that conversations like this are aired and people like Ken Loach are not stamped on for suggesting there are ethical and moral considerations at play that cant simply be isolated from the music 'man'.
 
gun ainm said:
so as I said I mixed bag in terms of impact but I think its hard to sustain that Graceland did more than the boycott ever did....btw I probably wouldn't go so far as to condemn Simon (like Dammers did at the time for example) I'm not anti Graceland in that regard. Hindsight probably helps..

my point in raising the AAM is not to say that 80s SA is the same as 10s Israel but to say that if you believe that the Israeli occupation is 'bad' then cultural boycotts can be an effective means of pressurizing a govt. IF you advocate such a policy its a legitimate conversation to have with Radiohead and not 'Marxist culturalism' whatever that might be. BTW I would not condemn Radiohead for playing Tel Aviv but for reasons given above I'd probably join the voices of those who'd discourage them from doing so....? My view would be its important that conversations like this are aired and people like Ken Loach are not stamped on for suggesting there are ethical and moral considerations at play that cant simply be isolated from the music 'man'.
Click to expand...

The key points being;

1. the album's infiltration via the promotion by the apartheid regime
2. the result being an actual break down of the barriers set out by the segregational government
3. and, the perception internally by black South Africans, once the album went stratospheric (biggest international album since MJ's Thriller) that the world was listening

I'm not saying Paul Simon meant it. He was almost a-political. Ignored any engagement with either the American or SA governments. I'm saying that, unintentionally, it triggered off multiple key points like a load of mini Franz Ferdinands (not the band).

On to your point; I think folk should be able to say what they want, like Loach, I reckon he's pretty inline with how I'd like to frame my world view in general but, I don't think folk should be greetin', whining kants about this particular subject in this particular way. Henry mentioned false equivalences and I think someone, maybe you, said that about my highlighting the comparison to everyone being upset with folk playing in benjamin netanyahu's Israel but not caring a jot about folk playing in Trump's America. Or even Putin's Russia. In fact, some folk moaned about Russia and their homophobic ways re the Olympics, eh? Nowt about non Russian musicians/DJs as far as I know.
Regarding the conflict looming in the background of this conversation; I detest the collateral damage on both sides and wish a plague on both the aggressors houses. But, and this is a massive but; this hatred of actions persistently conflated to Israel and (whether intentionally or not) Jewish folk in general is utter pish and I reckon someone should change the fuckin' record and modulate the debate for the better. I'm not saying there's a simple thing that folk aren't getting past the point I made, I'm just saying I think the debate is framed incorrectly and it'd be helpful if folk that are supposed to be pretty intelligent (I'm not meaning you here, I mean Loach, but I'm also not saying your not intelligent!) could spend a bit of time really thinking about their square one.
 
Brainwrong said:
The key points being;

1. the album's infiltration via the promotion by the apartheid regime
2. the result being an actual break down of the barriers set out by the segregational government
3. and, the perception internally by black South Africans, once the album went stratospheric (biggest international album since MJ's Thriller) that the world was listening

I'm not saying Paul Simon meant it. He was almost a-political. Ignored any engagement with either the American or SA governments. I'm saying that, unintentionally, it triggered off multiple key points like a load of mini Franz Ferdinands (not the band).

On to your point; I think folk should be able to say what they want, like Loach, I reckon he's pretty inline with how I'd like to frame my world view in general but, I don't think folk should be greetin', whining kants about this particular subject in this particular way. Henry mentioned false equivalences and I think someone, maybe you, said that about my highlighting the comparison to everyone being upset with folk playing in benjamin netanyahu's Israel but not caring a jot about folk playing in Trump's America. Or even Putin's Russia. In fact, some folk moaned about Russia and their homophobic ways re the Olympics, eh? Nowt about non Russian musicians/DJs as far as I know.
Regarding the conflict looming in the background of this conversation; I detest the collateral damage on both sides and wish a plague on both the aggressors houses. But, and this is a massive but; this hatred of actions persistently conflated to Israel and (whether intentionally or not) Jewish folk in general is utter pish and I reckon someone should change the $#@!in' record and modulate the debate for the better. I'm not saying there's a simple thing that folk aren't getting past the point I made, I'm just saying I think the debate is framed incorrectly and it'd be helpful if folk that are supposed to be pretty intelligent (I'm not meaning you here, I mean Loach, but I'm also not saying your not intelligent!) could spend a bit of time really thinking about their square one.
Click to expand...

cool - my view is that the impact of Graceland is probably over stated but that's opinion rather than fact and I am not going to go tonto because you see it a different way - the key point in the thread for me is that boycotts have been shown to be effective and are a legitimate consideration for anyone who wants to oppose Israel or indeed any other injustice (as they see it). I do agree Loach sounds a bit whiney in the link but I also think he's correct to raise the issue (the occupation) and if he has to make himself look a @@$@ for doing so then his self sacrifice is admirable ;P (tbh I think he could put a stronger argument).

I too am sick of the conflation of Israel and Jew, I cant add anything to what I have said before on the subject, personally if people suspect an anti-Semitic agenda to any of my criticisms of Israel then that's up to them its impossible for me to prove to these people otherwise. I find it insulting, dim witted and lazy but having tried to evidence and reason there's no longer any merit in that. sad but true. This mud slinging has a possible 2 aims (not mutually exclusive) - 1. to question motives (a good thing) and 2. to undermine legitimate criticism (a bad thing). Some undoubtedly deploy the latter approach. I am determined not to let unsubstantiated name calling impact on the public discussion of a key injustice of our time (which our government is party to) - rather it has the opposite effect and emboldens me if anything. It is not disproportionate, I don't want to change the f'in record but I am up for finding a way to modulate the debate - so would be interested in what you have in mind.

- - - Updated - - -

HenryLB said:
I enjoyed this:

Radiohead need to join the cultural boycott of Israel – why won’t they meet with me to discuss it? | The Independent

Who does Loach think he is?
Click to expand...

the headline is terrible and probably not written by Loach - the rest of the article is pretty fair if a bit whiney and hyperbolic in places - central points very strong. 7/10
 
gun ainm said:
cool - my view is that the impact of Graceland is probably over stated but that's opinion rather than fact and I am not going to go tonto because you see it a different way - the key point in the thread for me is that boycotts have been shown to be effective and are a legitimate consideration for anyone who wants to oppose Israel or indeed any other injustice (as they see it). I do agree Loach sounds a bit whiney in the link but I also think he's correct to raise the issue (the occupation) and if he has to make himself look a @@$@ for doing so then his self sacrifice is admirable ;P (tbh I think he could put a stronger argument).

I too am sick of the conflation of Israel and Jew, I cant add anything to what I have said before on the subject, personally if people suspect an anti-Semitic agenda to any of my criticisms of Israel then that's up to them its impossible for me to prove to these people otherwise. I find it insulting, dim witted and lazy but having tried to evidence and reason there's no longer any merit in that. sad but true. This mud slinging has a possible 2 aims (not mutually exclusive) - 1. to question motives (a good thing) and 2. to undermine legitimate criticism (a bad thing). Some undoubtedly deploy the latter approach. I am determined not to let unsubstantiated name calling impact on the public discussion of a key injustice of our time (which our government is party to) - rather it has the opposite effect and emboldens me if anything. It is not disproportionate, I don't want to change the f'in record but I am up for finding a way to modulate the debate - so would be interested in what you have in mind.
Click to expand...

I love the events where the regime in SA actually promoted the album and it had a very damaging effect to their cause. I'm happy to promote that idea because it gives me hope that music isn't frivolous and regimes aren't immune to gross errors of judgement. They can be brought down by the wee man. It's like a metaphor for supporting Hibs. It's a metaphor for so many things in life. We won that cup. Never expected you to go tonto, you're one of the most measured posters on this site. Loach's schtick irritates me immensely but I agree, if there's something you believe in, you should stick to your guns and use any influence you have, why wouldn't you?

I'd never expect you to be or have ever had any illusions as to you being anti semetic of making those conflations. I think Loach however doesn't make this clear to the general consuming public. Maybe that's not so easy to do in sound bites. I'd like to see him try. And, is it Roger Waters, Pink Floyd dude? He is even worse than Loach. It's all the Geldof ilk. So, nope, I am not accusing you of that, I have no basis anyway. I did mention intentional/unintentional earlier; that wasn't aimed at you. Aimed at the wider debate in general.

I didn't say I had any answers but firstly making the conflation thing extremely clear in the public debate then destroying & removing it would be a start.

Let NK nuke the lot? Have just a general nuclear war and have planet earth rid itself of this scourge called humanity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom