Should GnR songs be played?

[jarmo]

One In A Million is about...... I went back and forth from Indiana eight times my first year in Hollywood. I wrote it about being dropped off at the bus station and everything that was going on.
Axl - RIP April 1989

The most important thing about "One in a Million" is that it got people to think about racism. A lot of people thought I was talking about entire races or sectors of people. I wasn't. And there was an apology on the record. The apology is not even written that well, but it's not on the cover of every record. And no one has acknowledged it yet. No one.
Axl - Rolling Stone April 1992

There's a lot of people who have chosen to use that song ["One In A Million"]. However that song makes them feel, they think that must be what the song means. If they hate blacks, and they hear my lines and hate blacks even more, I'm sorry, but that's not how I meant it.
Axl - RIP September 1992

The song is very generic and generalized, and I apologized for that on the cover of the record. Going back and reading it, it wasn't the best apology but, at the time, it was the best apology I could make.
Axl - RIP November 1992





/jarmo

[sandman]

One In A Million is about...... I went back and forth from Indiana eight times my first year in Hollywood. I wrote it about being dropped off at the bus station and everything that was going on.
Axl - RIP April 1989

The most important thing about "One in a Million" is that it got people to think about racism. A lot of people thought I was talking about entire races or sectors of people. I wasn't. And there was an apology on the record. The apology is not even written that well, but it's not on the cover of every record. And no one has acknowledged it yet. No one.
Axl - Rolling Stone April 1992

There's a lot of people who have chosen to use that song ["One In A Million"]. However that song makes them feel, they think that must be what the song means. If they hate blacks, and they hear my lines and hate blacks even more, I'm sorry, but that's not how I meant it.
Axl - RIP September 1992

The song is very generic and generalized, and I apologized for that on the cover of the record. Going back and reading it, it wasn't the best apology but, at the time, it was the best apology I could make.
Axl - RIP November 1992





/jarmo

none of those quotes appear to imply that he was writing about some "character". it seems like it is very personal. the words are directly from Axl's point of view.

which is why I find Duff's comments so confusing. part of me wonders if this is the band trying to get out in front of something before it blows up? a very important step if you are considering any future releases and/or any press.

[sandman]

this is from a Rolling Stone interview:

Does it bother you that so many people think you’re misogynous, homophobic and racist?

Axl: "It can bother me. But the racist thing is just bullshit. I used a word that was taboo. And I used that word because it was taboo. I was pissed off about some black people that were trying to rob me. I wanted to insult those particular black people. I didn’t want to support racism. When I used the word faggots, I wasn’t coming down on gays. I was coming down on an element of gays. I had just heard a story about a man who was released out of the L.A. county jail with AIDS and he was hooking. I’ve had my share of dealings with aggressive gays, and I was bothered by it. The. Bible says, “Thou shalt not judge,” and I guess I made a judgment call, and it was an insult. The racist thing, that’s just stupid. I can understand how people would think that, but that’s not how I meant it. I believe that there’s always gonna be some form of racism –– as much as we’d like there to be peace –– because people are different. Black culture is different. I work with a black man every day [Earl Gabbidon, Rose’s bodyguard], and he’s one of my best friends. There are things he’s into that are definitely a “black thing.” But I can like them. There are things that are that way. I think there always will be."

[jarmo]

none of those quotes appear to imply that he was writing about some "character". it seems like it is very personal. the words are directly from Axl's point of view.

which is why I find Duff's comments so confusing. part of me wonders if this is the band trying to get out in front of something before it blows up? a very important step if you are considering any future releases and/or any press.

And it doesn't state those are his actual personal beliefs either.

Obviously you feel strongly about the subject since you started the topic.


I think he spoke about it almost thirty years ago. They're not performing the song live, they're not out promoting it.... I don't know what you're after to be honest.



/jarmo

[sandman]

none of those quotes appear to imply that he was writing about some "character". it seems like it is very personal. the words are directly from Axl's point of view.

which is why I find Duff's comments so confusing. part of me wonders if this is the band trying to get out in front of something before it blows up? a very important step if you are considering any future releases and/or any press.

And it doesn't state those are his actual personal beliefs either.

Obviously you feel strongly about the subject since you started the topic.


I think he spoke about it almost thirty years ago. They're not performing the song live, they're not out promoting it.... I don't know what you're after to be honest.



/jarmo

what am I after? interesting question, Jarmo.

i'm after something to pass time while i'm playing in poker tournaments. poker can be boring at times, so I look for mindless outlets to balance the mental challenges of poker, and to occupy my time.

as far as this thread, if you read my original post, you would understand my concerns; i.e. my favorite band could be black-balled by the current PC culture. in voicing those concerns on this board, I found that others have the same concerns. even some journalists have picked up on this risk. others don't see the risk, and it's interesting (reassuring even) to me to hear those opinions as well.   

the discussion logically went in the direction of Axl's intensions when he wrote and recorded those lyrics. a "defense" of Axl has been that it wasn't him using those words, but some "character" he created. I've heard this over the years and I never saw any comments from Axl, or anyone in the band, to support this. I always believed that was a portion of the fan base making something up to make themselves feel better about being such a huge fan of someone who could use such language.

I didn't mention any of this previously in this thread, but when I saw Duff's comments, it really got me thinking. maybe I missed a quote from back in the day. obviously, this is important to the topic of this thread because if true, it would make the comments less offensive.

but I certainly remember that Rolling Stone interview. and I remember his quotes well. not everyone accepted it back then, but destroying people's careers over words being said was not commonplace. also, there was probably a lower bar for dirty rock stars from LA. and Axl certainly had some powerful people in his corner.

[jarmo]

Maybe I have higher hopes for people...

I guess if his political beliefs were somewhere closer to Ted Nugent, these people would be yelling for a boycott...?





/jarmo

[PermissionToLand]

LOL, banned? How many songs have been banned for not being "PC"? As I recall, the right wing "moral majority" lead the crusade against music in the '80s and '90s and even they never actually banned anything.

So you're doubling down on defending statues glorifying TRAITORS TO THE COUNTRY who FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY? Have you no decency or at the very least, shame?

You and the others keep bleating "context" but repeatedly fail to make any argument explaining the context that supposedly exculpates anything...

Again, CONTEXT.

For example, the purpose of erecting the statues in the 1st place was not done with the explicit purpose of honoring slavery.  Some of them were brilliant military leaders and strategists. If a municipality deems a statue should be moved or taken down, no problem with that, but having an angry mob pulldown a statue they deem as racist doesn't enlighten anyone or change anything.   Ever think at this point the statues of historical figures from the Civil War era remind us that slavery  was a stain on our country and we should not forget that rather than clean up or whitewash the past?  Maybe we should tear down Auschwitz while we are at it for the same type of reasons.

Hopefully my response will let you know where I'm coming from ( but I doubt it, after all you've judged me to have no decency or shame. Amazing you can determine that about me from a message board post  )

Remember the old saying, if you dont like what is on TV, change the channel.

I did not say they were honoring slavery itself, I said the were honoring men who fought against the united stated to defend slavery. It was even in all caps and you managed to miss it? Way to prove you don't listen to a word anyone with a different opinion says...

There were lots of brilliant leaders and strategists who weren't traitors defending slavery. I wonder why they were not chosen instead? Hmm...

Too bad a basic knowledge of history proves you wrong. Those monuments were put up with the express purpose of glorifying defenders of slavery, as were monuments of "loyal slaves" that sought to whitewash and rewrite history in a more favorable way for the confederacy. For the love of God, educate yourself:

https://www.thenation.com/article/loyal-slave-confederate-monuments-civil-war-slavery/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/take-the-statues-down/536727/

"I searched for dedication speeches that were given at Confederate soldier monuments across North Carolina. Most orations were given by veterans and state officials. I successfully tracked down 30, and they support two conclusions: 1) white nationalism was a fixture of Confederate monumentation, and 2) Confederate soldier monuments honored veterans for their postwar success in eroding black equality as much as for their failed wartime sacrifices.

Racist language pervades the dedication speeches. If one assumes that the speaker is excluding blacks from the term “southerners,” when its use clearly meant only white southerners, then white identity politics are present in every speech. But speakers were often more explicit. 14 speeches explicitly invoked “our Anglo-Saxon ancestors,” “love of race,” or “your own race and blood.""

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186178233.html

To suggest that confederate leaders were chosen just by coincidence or merit is utterly ignorant of history. These monuments were put up under a campaign by the Daughters of the Confederacy (recognized by historians to promote revisionist history and even white supremacy) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (which says on their website that “the negroes were the most spoiled domestics in the world”), with two big surges in erecting them, during the Jim Crow era and during the Civil Rights Movement. Yep, nothing about slavery and racism there!

According to historian Jane Dailey from University of Chicago, the purpose of the monuments was not to celebrate the past but rather to promote a "white supremacist future". Another historian, Karyn Cox, from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has written that the monuments are "a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era". A historian from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, James Leloudis, stated that "The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule."

Literally all it takes to know the intentions of these monuments is reading the dedication speeches which explicitly state they are to glorify the confederacy.

How's that for "CONTEXT" for you? Somehow, I expect you to ignore this mountain context...

"If you don't like racism being spread, just ignore it." Good solution.

Now, are you done defending the glorification of fucking SLAVERY SUPPORTING TRAITORS yet?

[PermissionToLand]

what am I after? interesting question, Jarmo.

i'm after something to pass time while i'm playing in poker tournaments. poker can be boring at times, so I look for mindless outlets to balance the mental challenges of poker, and to occupy my time.

as far as this thread, if you read my original post, you would understand my concerns; i.e. my favorite band could be black-balled by the current PC culture. in voicing those concerns on this board, I found that others have the same concerns. even some journalists have picked up on this risk. others don't see the risk, and it's interesting (reassuring even) to me to hear those opinions as well.   

the discussion logically went in the direction of Axl's intensions when he wrote and recorded those lyrics. a "defense" of Axl has been that it wasn't him using those words, but some "character" he created. I've heard this over the years and I never saw any comments from Axl, or anyone in the band, to support this. I always believed that was a portion of the fan base making something up to make themselves feel better about being such a huge fan of someone who could use such language.

I didn't mention any of this previously in this thread, but when I saw Duff's comments, it really got me thinking. maybe I missed a quote from back in the day. obviously, this is important to the topic of this thread because if true, it would make the comments less offensive.

but I certainly remember that Rolling Stone interview. and I remember his quotes well. not everyone accepted it back then, but destroying people's careers over words being said was not commonplace. also, there was probably a lower bar for dirty rock stars from LA. and Axl certainly had some powerful people in his corner.

People have lost their careers over things they have said since the beginning of time. Does the Red Scare ring a bell? Over TWO THOUSAND govt employees lost their jobs because they appeared too "radical". That was an actual wide ranging operation by many conservatives who actually held power and used it against regular citizens. You are whining about some nobodies on Twitter with no power having opinions you don't like.

You people really do live in an alternate universe...

There is no threat at all, you are just trying to stir shit up to further your anti-PC agenda. If anyone called them out, Axl would make a genuine apology because he's grown up considerably since 1989. You should take notes.

[ITARocker]

LOL, banned? How many songs have been banned for not being "PC"? As I recall, the right wing "moral majority" lead the crusade against music in the '80s and '90s and even they never actually banned anything.

So you're doubling down on defending statues glorifying TRAITORS TO THE COUNTRY who FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY? Have you no decency or at the very least, shame?

You and the others keep bleating "context" but repeatedly fail to make any argument explaining the context that supposedly exculpates anything...

Again, CONTEXT.

For example, the purpose of erecting the statues in the 1st place was not done with the explicit purpose of honoring slavery.  Some of them were brilliant military leaders and strategists. If a municipality deems a statue should be moved or taken down, no problem with that, but having an angry mob pulldown a statue they deem as racist doesn't enlighten anyone or change anything.   Ever think at this point the statues of historical figures from the Civil War era remind us that slavery  was a stain on our country and we should not forget that rather than clean up or whitewash the past?  Maybe we should tear down Auschwitz while we are at it for the same type of reasons.

Hopefully my response will let you know where I'm coming from ( but I doubt it, after all you've judged me to have no decency or shame. Amazing you can determine that about me from a message board post  )

Remember the old saying, if you dont like what is on TV, change the channel.

I did not say they were honoring slavery itself, I said the were honoring men who fought against the united stated to defend slavery. It was even in all caps and you managed to miss it? Way to prove you don't listen to a word anyone with a different opinion says...

There were lots of brilliant leaders and strategists who weren't traitors defending slavery. I wonder why they were not chosen instead? Hmm...

Too bad a basic knowledge of history proves you wrong. Those monuments were put up with the express purpose of glorifying defenders of slavery, as were monuments of "loyal slaves" that sought to whitewash and rewrite history in a more favorable way for the confederacy. For the love of God, educate yourself:

https://www.thenation.com/article/loyal-slave-confederate-monuments-civil-war-slavery/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/take-the-statues-down/536727/

"I searched for dedication speeches that were given at Confederate soldier monuments across North Carolina. Most orations were given by veterans and state officials. I successfully tracked down 30, and they support two conclusions: 1) white nationalism was a fixture of Confederate monumentation, and 2) Confederate soldier monuments honored veterans for their postwar success in eroding black equality as much as for their failed wartime sacrifices.

Racist language pervades the dedication speeches. If one assumes that the speaker is excluding blacks from the term “southerners,” when its use clearly meant only white southerners, then white identity politics are present in every speech. But speakers were often more explicit. 14 speeches explicitly invoked “our Anglo-Saxon ancestors,” “love of race,” or “your own race and blood.""

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186178233.html

To suggest that confederate leaders were chosen just by coincidence or merit is utterly ignorant of history. These monuments were put up under a campaign by the Daughters of the Confederacy (recognized by historians to promote revisionist history and even white supremacy) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (which says on their website that “the negroes were the most spoiled domestics in the world”), with two big surges in erecting them, during the Jim Crow era and during the Civil Rights Movement. Yep, nothing about slavery and racism there!

According to historian Jane Dailey from University of Chicago, the purpose of the monuments was not to celebrate the past but rather to promote a "white supremacist future". Another historian, Karyn Cox, from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has written that the monuments are "a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era". A historian from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, James Leloudis, stated that "The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule."

Literally all it takes to know the intentions of these monuments is reading the dedication speeches which explicitly state they are to glorify the confederacy.

How's that for "CONTEXT" for you? Somehow, I expect you to ignore this mountain context...

"If you don't like racism being spread, just ignore it." Good solution.

Now, are you done defending the glorification of fucking SLAVERY SUPPORTING TRAITORS yet?

This shows what happens when you almost don't have a history . So let's destroy all the monuments in Rome (and everywhere in Europe), because the Roman Empire was an empire built on blood (and slavery too) and monuments were built JUST to prove that. Monuments are there to remind you where do you come from and you know, sometimes they are a piece of art also. It looks like you don't have a culture to understand this. Ask yourself why they didn't destroy those monuments at the time, ask yourself why when u come to Rome you still see the EUR area and the Dux Obelisc and COmmunists didn't destroy that at the time. No, they didn't forget to do that. Erasing all that you don't like from public view/mind it's called nazism, everyone knows that but usa people nowadays. In Italy we have Lenin, Stalin, Littorio roads and nobody really care cause it's history, good or bad. Meanwhile some people somewhere in the USA are discussing to remove Colombo's Statues .

[allwaystired]

LOL, banned? How many songs have been banned for not being "PC"? As I recall, the right wing "moral majority" lead the crusade against music in the '80s and '90s and even they never actually banned anything.

So you're doubling down on defending statues glorifying TRAITORS TO THE COUNTRY who FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY? Have you no decency or at the very least, shame?

You and the others keep bleating "context" but repeatedly fail to make any argument explaining the context that supposedly exculpates anything...

Again, CONTEXT.

For example, the purpose of erecting the statues in the 1st place was not done with the explicit purpose of honoring slavery.  Some of them were brilliant military leaders and strategists. If a municipality deems a statue should be moved or taken down, no problem with that, but having an angry mob pulldown a statue they deem as racist doesn't enlighten anyone or change anything.   Ever think at this point the statues of historical figures from the Civil War era remind us that slavery  was a stain on our country and we should not forget that rather than clean up or whitewash the past?  Maybe we should tear down Auschwitz while we are at it for the same type of reasons.

Hopefully my response will let you know where I'm coming from ( but I doubt it, after all you've judged me to have no decency or shame. Amazing you can determine that about me from a message board post  )

Remember the old saying, if you dont like what is on TV, change the channel.

I did not say they were honoring slavery itself, I said the were honoring men who fought against the united stated to defend slavery. It was even in all caps and you managed to miss it? Way to prove you don't listen to a word anyone with a different opinion says...

There were lots of brilliant leaders and strategists who weren't traitors defending slavery. I wonder why they were not chosen instead? Hmm...

Too bad a basic knowledge of history proves you wrong. Those monuments were put up with the express purpose of glorifying defenders of slavery, as were monuments of "loyal slaves" that sought to whitewash and rewrite history in a more favorable way for the confederacy. For the love of God, educate yourself:

https://www.thenation.com/article/loyal-slave-confederate-monuments-civil-war-slavery/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/take-the-statues-down/536727/

"I searched for dedication speeches that were given at Confederate soldier monuments across North Carolina. Most orations were given by veterans and state officials. I successfully tracked down 30, and they support two conclusions: 1) white nationalism was a fixture of Confederate monumentation, and 2) Confederate soldier monuments honored veterans for their postwar success in eroding black equality as much as for their failed wartime sacrifices.

Racist language pervades the dedication speeches. If one assumes that the speaker is excluding blacks from the term “southerners,” when its use clearly meant only white southerners, then white identity politics are present in every speech. But speakers were often more explicit. 14 speeches explicitly invoked “our Anglo-Saxon ancestors,” “love of race,” or “your own race and blood.""

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186178233.html

To suggest that confederate leaders were chosen just by coincidence or merit is utterly ignorant of history. These monuments were put up under a campaign by the Daughters of the Confederacy (recognized by historians to promote revisionist history and even white supremacy) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (which says on their website that “the negroes were the most spoiled domestics in the world”), with two big surges in erecting them, during the Jim Crow era and during the Civil Rights Movement. Yep, nothing about slavery and racism there!

According to historian Jane Dailey from University of Chicago, the purpose of the monuments was not to celebrate the past but rather to promote a "white supremacist future". Another historian, Karyn Cox, from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has written that the monuments are "a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era". A historian from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, James Leloudis, stated that "The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule."

Literally all it takes to know the intentions of these monuments is reading the dedication speeches which explicitly state they are to glorify the confederacy.

How's that for "CONTEXT" for you? Somehow, I expect you to ignore this mountain context...

"If you don't like racism being spread, just ignore it." Good solution.

Now, are you done defending the glorification of fucking SLAVERY SUPPORTING TRAITORS yet?

This shows what happens when you almost don't have a history . So let's destroy all the monuments in Rome (and everywhere in Europe), because the Roman Empire was an empire built on blood (and slavery too) and monuments were built JUST to prove that. Monuments are there to remind you where do you come from and you know, sometimes they are a piece of art also. It looks like you don't have a culture to understand this. Ask yourself why they didn't destroy those monuments at the time, ask yourself why when u come to Rome you still see the EUR area and the Dux Obelisc and COmmunists didn't destroy that at the time. No, they didn't forget to do that. Erasing all that you don't like from public view/mind it's called nazism, everyone knows that but usa people nowadays. In Italy we have Lenin, Stalin, Littorio roads and nobody really care cause it's history, good or bad. Meanwhile some people somewhere in the USA are discussing to remove Colombo's Statues .

Any update on calling black people 'n#####s' to their faces yet? You know, as it's just a word? I'm eager to know how that one's going....

[ITARocker]

LOL, banned? How many songs have been banned for not being "PC"? As I recall, the right wing "moral majority" lead the crusade against music in the '80s and '90s and even they never actually banned anything.

So you're doubling down on defending statues glorifying TRAITORS TO THE COUNTRY who FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY? Have you no decency or at the very least, shame?

You and the others keep bleating "context" but repeatedly fail to make any argument explaining the context that supposedly exculpates anything...

Again, CONTEXT.

For example, the purpose of erecting the statues in the 1st place was not done with the explicit purpose of honoring slavery.  Some of them were brilliant military leaders and strategists. If a municipality deems a statue should be moved or taken down, no problem with that, but having an angry mob pulldown a statue they deem as racist doesn't enlighten anyone or change anything.   Ever think at this point the statues of historical figures from the Civil War era remind us that slavery  was a stain on our country and we should not forget that rather than clean up or whitewash the past?  Maybe we should tear down Auschwitz while we are at it for the same type of reasons.

Hopefully my response will let you know where I'm coming from ( but I doubt it, after all you've judged me to have no decency or shame. Amazing you can determine that about me from a message board post  )

Remember the old saying, if you dont like what is on TV, change the channel.

I did not say they were honoring slavery itself, I said the were honoring men who fought against the united stated to defend slavery. It was even in all caps and you managed to miss it? Way to prove you don't listen to a word anyone with a different opinion says...

There were lots of brilliant leaders and strategists who weren't traitors defending slavery. I wonder why they were not chosen instead? Hmm...

Too bad a basic knowledge of history proves you wrong. Those monuments were put up with the express purpose of glorifying defenders of slavery, as were monuments of "loyal slaves" that sought to whitewash and rewrite history in a more favorable way for the confederacy. For the love of God, educate yourself:

https://www.thenation.com/article/loyal-slave-confederate-monuments-civil-war-slavery/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/take-the-statues-down/536727/

"I searched for dedication speeches that were given at Confederate soldier monuments across North Carolina. Most orations were given by veterans and state officials. I successfully tracked down 30, and they support two conclusions: 1) white nationalism was a fixture of Confederate monumentation, and 2) Confederate soldier monuments honored veterans for their postwar success in eroding black equality as much as for their failed wartime sacrifices.

Racist language pervades the dedication speeches. If one assumes that the speaker is excluding blacks from the term “southerners,” when its use clearly meant only white southerners, then white identity politics are present in every speech. But speakers were often more explicit. 14 speeches explicitly invoked “our Anglo-Saxon ancestors,” “love of race,” or “your own race and blood.""

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186178233.html

To suggest that confederate leaders were chosen just by coincidence or merit is utterly ignorant of history. These monuments were put up under a campaign by the Daughters of the Confederacy (recognized by historians to promote revisionist history and even white supremacy) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (which says on their website that “the negroes were the most spoiled domestics in the world”), with two big surges in erecting them, during the Jim Crow era and during the Civil Rights Movement. Yep, nothing about slavery and racism there!

According to historian Jane Dailey from University of Chicago, the purpose of the monuments was not to celebrate the past but rather to promote a "white supremacist future". Another historian, Karyn Cox, from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has written that the monuments are "a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era". A historian from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, James Leloudis, stated that "The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule."

Literally all it takes to know the intentions of these monuments is reading the dedication speeches which explicitly state they are to glorify the confederacy.

How's that for "CONTEXT" for you? Somehow, I expect you to ignore this mountain context...

"If you don't like racism being spread, just ignore it." Good solution.

Now, are you done defending the glorification of fucking SLAVERY SUPPORTING TRAITORS yet?

This shows what happens when you almost don't have a history . So let's destroy all the monuments in Rome (and everywhere in Europe), because the Roman Empire was an empire built on blood (and slavery too) and monuments were built JUST to prove that. Monuments are there to remind you where do you come from and you know, sometimes they are a piece of art also. It looks like you don't have a culture to understand this. Ask yourself why they didn't destroy those monuments at the time, ask yourself why when u come to Rome you still see the EUR area and the Dux Obelisc and COmmunists didn't destroy that at the time. No, they didn't forget to do that. Erasing all that you don't like from public view/mind it's called nazism, everyone knows that but usa people nowadays. In Italy we have Lenin, Stalin, Littorio roads and nobody really care cause it's history, good or bad. Meanwhile some people somewhere in the USA are discussing to remove Colombo's Statues .

Any update on calling black people 'n#####s' to their faces yet? You know, as it's just a word? I'm eager to know how that one's going....

Yes sure, cause i wrote down that...How old are you, 13? I hope so. Do yourself a favor. Go back, re-read and quote me where I say that. I'm waiting.

[allwaystired]

LOL, banned? How many songs have been banned for not being "PC"? As I recall, the right wing "moral majority" lead the crusade against music in the '80s and '90s and even they never actually banned anything.

So you're doubling down on defending statues glorifying TRAITORS TO THE COUNTRY who FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY? Have you no decency or at the very least, shame?

You and the others keep bleating "context" but repeatedly fail to make any argument explaining the context that supposedly exculpates anything...

Again, CONTEXT.

For example, the purpose of erecting the statues in the 1st place was not done with the explicit purpose of honoring slavery.  Some of them were brilliant military leaders and strategists. If a municipality deems a statue should be moved or taken down, no problem with that, but having an angry mob pulldown a statue they deem as racist doesn't enlighten anyone or change anything.   Ever think at this point the statues of historical figures from the Civil War era remind us that slavery  was a stain on our country and we should not forget that rather than clean up or whitewash the past?  Maybe we should tear down Auschwitz while we are at it for the same type of reasons.

Hopefully my response will let you know where I'm coming from ( but I doubt it, after all you've judged me to have no decency or shame. Amazing you can determine that about me from a message board post  )

Remember the old saying, if you dont like what is on TV, change the channel.

I did not say they were honoring slavery itself, I said the were honoring men who fought against the united stated to defend slavery. It was even in all caps and you managed to miss it? Way to prove you don't listen to a word anyone with a different opinion says...

There were lots of brilliant leaders and strategists who weren't traitors defending slavery. I wonder why they were not chosen instead? Hmm...

Too bad a basic knowledge of history proves you wrong. Those monuments were put up with the express purpose of glorifying defenders of slavery, as were monuments of "loyal slaves" that sought to whitewash and rewrite history in a more favorable way for the confederacy. For the love of God, educate yourself:

https://www.thenation.com/article/loyal-slave-confederate-monuments-civil-war-slavery/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/take-the-statues-down/536727/

"I searched for dedication speeches that were given at Confederate soldier monuments across North Carolina. Most orations were given by veterans and state officials. I successfully tracked down 30, and they support two conclusions: 1) white nationalism was a fixture of Confederate monumentation, and 2) Confederate soldier monuments honored veterans for their postwar success in eroding black equality as much as for their failed wartime sacrifices.

Racist language pervades the dedication speeches. If one assumes that the speaker is excluding blacks from the term “southerners,” when its use clearly meant only white southerners, then white identity politics are present in every speech. But speakers were often more explicit. 14 speeches explicitly invoked “our Anglo-Saxon ancestors,” “love of race,” or “your own race and blood.""

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186178233.html

To suggest that confederate leaders were chosen just by coincidence or merit is utterly ignorant of history. These monuments were put up under a campaign by the Daughters of the Confederacy (recognized by historians to promote revisionist history and even white supremacy) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (which says on their website that “the negroes were the most spoiled domestics in the world”), with two big surges in erecting them, during the Jim Crow era and during the Civil Rights Movement. Yep, nothing about slavery and racism there!

According to historian Jane Dailey from University of Chicago, the purpose of the monuments was not to celebrate the past but rather to promote a "white supremacist future". Another historian, Karyn Cox, from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has written that the monuments are "a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era". A historian from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, James Leloudis, stated that "The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule."

Literally all it takes to know the intentions of these monuments is reading the dedication speeches which explicitly state they are to glorify the confederacy.

How's that for "CONTEXT" for you? Somehow, I expect you to ignore this mountain context...

"If you don't like racism being spread, just ignore it." Good solution.

Now, are you done defending the glorification of fucking SLAVERY SUPPORTING TRAITORS yet?

This shows what happens when you almost don't have a history . So let's destroy all the monuments in Rome (and everywhere in Europe), because the Roman Empire was an empire built on blood (and slavery too) and monuments were built JUST to prove that. Monuments are there to remind you where do you come from and you know, sometimes they are a piece of art also. It looks like you don't have a culture to understand this. Ask yourself why they didn't destroy those monuments at the time, ask yourself why when u come to Rome you still see the EUR area and the Dux Obelisc and COmmunists didn't destroy that at the time. No, they didn't forget to do that. Erasing all that you don't like from public view/mind it's called nazism, everyone knows that but usa people nowadays. In Italy we have Lenin, Stalin, Littorio roads and nobody really care cause it's history, good or bad. Meanwhile some people somewhere in the USA are discussing to remove Colombo's Statues .

Any update on calling black people 'n#####s' to their faces yet? You know, as it's just a word? I'm eager to know how that one's going....

Yes sure, cause i wrote down that...How old are you, 13? I hope so. Do yourself a favor. Go back, re-read and quote me where I say that. I'm waiting.

Certainly.

Here you are:

"Words are just words, if  not supported by the facts. I could be an employer and call my fat black secretary "chocolate mommy".  ANother employer has not black people employed cause he hates them. But you know, because of the "social norm" I'll be the homofobic racist employer who should be  banned from society, the other one would be the good guy."

Also, we've got:

"Guys, words are just words."

As "words are just words" I suggested you started calling black people "n#####s" to their faces, and see if they agreed. I'm eager to hear how you're getting on with that one.

[ITARocker]

LOL, banned? How many songs have been banned for not being "PC"? As I recall, the right wing "moral majority" lead the crusade against music in the '80s and '90s and even they never actually banned anything.

So you're doubling down on defending statues glorifying TRAITORS TO THE COUNTRY who FOUGHT TO PRESERVE SLAVERY? Have you no decency or at the very least, shame?

You and the others keep bleating "context" but repeatedly fail to make any argument explaining the context that supposedly exculpates anything...

Again, CONTEXT.

For example, the purpose of erecting the statues in the 1st place was not done with the explicit purpose of honoring slavery.  Some of them were brilliant military leaders and strategists. If a municipality deems a statue should be moved or taken down, no problem with that, but having an angry mob pulldown a statue they deem as racist doesn't enlighten anyone or change anything.   Ever think at this point the statues of historical figures from the Civil War era remind us that slavery  was a stain on our country and we should not forget that rather than clean up or whitewash the past?  Maybe we should tear down Auschwitz while we are at it for the same type of reasons.

Hopefully my response will let you know where I'm coming from ( but I doubt it, after all you've judged me to have no decency or shame. Amazing you can determine that about me from a message board post  )

Remember the old saying, if you dont like what is on TV, change the channel.

I did not say they were honoring slavery itself, I said the were honoring men who fought against the united stated to defend slavery. It was even in all caps and you managed to miss it? Way to prove you don't listen to a word anyone with a different opinion says...

There were lots of brilliant leaders and strategists who weren't traitors defending slavery. I wonder why they were not chosen instead? Hmm...

Too bad a basic knowledge of history proves you wrong. Those monuments were put up with the express purpose of glorifying defenders of slavery, as were monuments of "loyal slaves" that sought to whitewash and rewrite history in a more favorable way for the confederacy. For the love of God, educate yourself:

https://www.thenation.com/article/loyal-slave-confederate-monuments-civil-war-slavery/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/take-the-statues-down/536727/

"I searched for dedication speeches that were given at Confederate soldier monuments across North Carolina. Most orations were given by veterans and state officials. I successfully tracked down 30, and they support two conclusions: 1) white nationalism was a fixture of Confederate monumentation, and 2) Confederate soldier monuments honored veterans for their postwar success in eroding black equality as much as for their failed wartime sacrifices.

Racist language pervades the dedication speeches. If one assumes that the speaker is excluding blacks from the term “southerners,” when its use clearly meant only white southerners, then white identity politics are present in every speech. But speakers were often more explicit. 14 speeches explicitly invoked “our Anglo-Saxon ancestors,” “love of race,” or “your own race and blood.""

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article186178233.html

To suggest that confederate leaders were chosen just by coincidence or merit is utterly ignorant of history. These monuments were put up under a campaign by the Daughters of the Confederacy (recognized by historians to promote revisionist history and even white supremacy) and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (which says on their website that “the negroes were the most spoiled domestics in the world”), with two big surges in erecting them, during the Jim Crow era and during the Civil Rights Movement. Yep, nothing about slavery and racism there!

According to historian Jane Dailey from University of Chicago, the purpose of the monuments was not to celebrate the past but rather to promote a "white supremacist future". Another historian, Karyn Cox, from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has written that the monuments are "a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era". A historian from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, James Leloudis, stated that "The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule."

Literally all it takes to know the intentions of these monuments is reading the dedication speeches which explicitly state they are to glorify the confederacy.

How's that for "CONTEXT" for you? Somehow, I expect you to ignore this mountain context...

"If you don't like racism being spread, just ignore it." Good solution.

Now, are you done defending the glorification of fucking SLAVERY SUPPORTING TRAITORS yet?

This shows what happens when you almost don't have a history . So let's destroy all the monuments in Rome (and everywhere in Europe), because the Roman Empire was an empire built on blood (and slavery too) and monuments were built JUST to prove that. Monuments are there to remind you where do you come from and you know, sometimes they are a piece of art also. It looks like you don't have a culture to understand this. Ask yourself why they didn't destroy those monuments at the time, ask yourself why when u come to Rome you still see the EUR area and the Dux Obelisc and COmmunists didn't destroy that at the time. No, they didn't forget to do that. Erasing all that you don't like from public view/mind it's called nazism, everyone knows that but usa people nowadays. In Italy we have Lenin, Stalin, Littorio roads and nobody really care cause it's history, good or bad. Meanwhile some people somewhere in the USA are discussing to remove Colombo's Statues .

Any update on calling black people 'n#####s' to their faces yet? You know, as it's just a word? I'm eager to know how that one's going....

Yes sure, cause i wrote down that...How old are you, 13? I hope so. Do yourself a favor. Go back, re-read and quote me where I say that. I'm waiting.

Certainly.

Here you are:

"Words are just words, if  not supported by the facts. I could be an employer and call my fat black secretary "chocolate mommy".  ANother employer has not black people employed cause he hates them. But you know, because of the "social norm" I'll be the homofobic racist employer who should be  banned from society, the other one would be the good guy."

As "words are just words" I suggested you started calling black people "n#####s" to their faces, and see if they agreed. I'm eager to hear how you're getting on with that one.

Yeah, pathetic. As the old Racist says "we read what we want between selected lines"... Funny how you missed my point on purpose  If you don't understand what I wrote, go back to school. And plz, tell me where  I used the "n-word" in that quote, cause i just don't find it. Just sayin'...

[allwaystired]

I'm not too sure how much ambiguity or scope for misunderstanding there is in someone repeatedly saying "words are just words". If you actually believe that, please feel free to start backing it up. I'd suggest you don't think that "words are just words" at all, and modify your language in everyday life as everyone else does.

Here's your use of the n word, just to refresh your memory:

"If you are a black guy who is assaulting me maybe i'll answer you  "fuckin n"

The charming defence of calling someone fat and black a "chocolate mummy" was a good one too. How about trying that one in real life and away from a forum? 

NB. Following advising someone to "go back to school" with "plz" is somewhat ironic.

[sandman]

what am I after? interesting question, Jarmo.

i'm after something to pass time while i'm playing in poker tournaments. poker can be boring at times, so I look for mindless outlets to balance the mental challenges of poker, and to occupy my time.

as far as this thread, if you read my original post, you would understand my concerns; i.e. my favorite band could be black-balled by the current PC culture. in voicing those concerns on this board, I found that others have the same concerns. even some journalists have picked up on this risk. others don't see the risk, and it's interesting (reassuring even) to me to hear those opinions as well.   

the discussion logically went in the direction of Axl's intensions when he wrote and recorded those lyrics. a "defense" of Axl has been that it wasn't him using those words, but some "character" he created. I've heard this over the years and I never saw any comments from Axl, or anyone in the band, to support this. I always believed that was a portion of the fan base making something up to make themselves feel better about being such a huge fan of someone who could use such language.

I didn't mention any of this previously in this thread, but when I saw Duff's comments, it really got me thinking. maybe I missed a quote from back in the day. obviously, this is important to the topic of this thread because if true, it would make the comments less offensive.

but I certainly remember that Rolling Stone interview. and I remember his quotes well. not everyone accepted it back then, but destroying people's careers over words being said was not commonplace. also, there was probably a lower bar for dirty rock stars from LA. and Axl certainly had some powerful people in his corner.

People have lost their careers over things they have said since the beginning of time. Does the Red Scare ring a bell? Over TWO THOUSAND govt employees lost their jobs because they appeared too "radical". That was an actual wide ranging operation by many conservatives who actually held power and used it against regular citizens. You are whining about some nobodies on Twitter with no power having opinions you don't like.

You people really do live in an alternate universe...

There is no threat at all, you are just trying to stir shit up to further your anti-PC agenda. If anyone called them out, Axl would make a genuine apology because he's grown up considerably since 1989. You should take notes.

uh oh, the angry kid is back. didn't mommy cut the edges off your samwich?

you should look up the word "commonplace."

Kate Smith just had her reputation destroyed because of a random fan. if you can't see how technology has changed the game and made everything and everyone accessible, you should try stepping out of mommy's basement. 

[ITARocker]

I'm not too sure how much ambiguity or scope for misunderstanding there is in someone repeatedly saying "words are just words". If you actually believe that, please feel free to start backing it up. I'd suggest you don't think that "words are just words" at all, and modify your language in everyday life as everyone else does.

Here's your use of the n word, just to refresh your memory:

"If you are a black guy who is assaulting me maybe i'll answer you  "fuckin n"

The charming defence of calling someone fat and black a "chocolate mummy" was a good one too. How about trying that one in real life and away from a forum? 

NB. Following advising someone to "go back to school" with "plz" is somewhat ironic.

Again u missed my point...How many times i have to explain this? I think it's pretty clear and I'm really fed up, so I won't restart this...

[allwaystired]

I'm not too sure how much ambiguity or scope for misunderstanding there is in someone repeatedly saying "words are just words". If you actually believe that, please feel free to start backing it up. I'd suggest you don't think that "words are just words" at all, and modify your language in everyday life as everyone else does.

Here's your use of the n word, just to refresh your memory:

"If you are a black guy who is assaulting me maybe i'll answer you  "fuckin n"

The charming defence of calling someone fat and black a "chocolate mummy" was a good one too. How about trying that one in real life and away from a forum? 

NB. Following advising someone to "go back to school" with "plz" is somewhat ironic.

Again u missed my point...How many times i have to explain this? I think it's pretty clear and I'm really fed up, so I won't restart this...

Great. I can't be bothered to try and work out what you mean by "words are just words", if it isn't that words are just words. Fairly sure I'm not alone on that one. The mind boggles as to what else it could mean.

Good luck with using some of your words in the real world.

[PermissionToLand]

This shows what happens when you almost don't have a history.

... what?

It appears you didn't read a word I wrote or any of my links. Being content in ignorance is not a good thing.

So let's destroy all the monuments in Rome (and everywhere in Europe), because the Roman Empire was an empire built on blood (and slavery too) and monuments were built JUST to prove that. Monuments are there to remind you where do you come from and you know, sometimes they are a piece of art also. It looks like you don't have a culture to understand this. Ask yourself why they didn't destroy those monuments at the time, ask yourself why when u come to Rome you still see the EUR area and the Dux Obelisc and COmmunists didn't destroy that at the time. No, they didn't forget to do that.

Except monuments of Romans were not built with the explicit purpose of whitewashing history. But sure, take them down. They belong in museums anyway, where they can be given proper context.

Also, Roman statues are of people who fought FOR their country, not AGAINST it. 

Yes, monuments are art and reminders of history, I never said otherwise. However you keep ignoring the fact that they are also meant to glorify, which is what's actually relevant to the discussion here.

The EUR and Dux Obelisco are not the same as a statue of Mussolini. Come on, that is just a desperate argument.

Erasing all that you don't like from public view/mind it's called nazism, everyone knows that but usa people nowadays. In Italy we have Lenin, Stalin, Littorio roads and nobody really care cause it's history, good or bad.

Wow, where to even begin with this one? You might want to look up the definition of Naziism... by your definition Christians are Nazis for trying to keep satanist statues off of public lands.

Taking down a statue is not erasing anything. I don't know how many times I have to say this before it sinks in. Monuments are not textbooks. They do not exist to teach history, their primary purpose is to glorify.

You're proud to have roads named after Lenin and Stalin? But yeah, the problem is clearly with American culture here...

Meanwhile some people somewhere in the USA are discussing to remove Colombo's Statues .

... uhh, what? Do you mean Columbus? 

And why the hell should we glorify a guy who orchestrated mass genocide, pillaged and enslaved people? You think that deserves glorification? Not to mention he wasn't even the first to discover the Americas (if you are arrogant enough to say anyone "discovered" a land already inhabited by millions of people. I guess brown people don't count?).

Tell me, did you learn about Columbus from a statue or from your history teacher and textbook?

[PermissionToLand]

what am I after? interesting question, Jarmo.

i'm after something to pass time while i'm playing in poker tournaments. poker can be boring at times, so I look for mindless outlets to balance the mental challenges of poker, and to occupy my time.

as far as this thread, if you read my original post, you would understand my concerns; i.e. my favorite band could be black-balled by the current PC culture. in voicing those concerns on this board, I found that others have the same concerns. even some journalists have picked up on this risk. others don't see the risk, and it's interesting (reassuring even) to me to hear those opinions as well.   

the discussion logically went in the direction of Axl's intensions when he wrote and recorded those lyrics. a "defense" of Axl has been that it wasn't him using those words, but some "character" he created. I've heard this over the years and I never saw any comments from Axl, or anyone in the band, to support this. I always believed that was a portion of the fan base making something up to make themselves feel better about being such a huge fan of someone who could use such language.

I didn't mention any of this previously in this thread, but when I saw Duff's comments, it really got me thinking. maybe I missed a quote from back in the day. obviously, this is important to the topic of this thread because if true, it would make the comments less offensive.

but I certainly remember that Rolling Stone interview. and I remember his quotes well. not everyone accepted it back then, but destroying people's careers over words being said was not commonplace. also, there was probably a lower bar for dirty rock stars from LA. and Axl certainly had some powerful people in his corner.

People have lost their careers over things they have said since the beginning of time. Does the Red Scare ring a bell? Over TWO THOUSAND govt employees lost their jobs because they appeared too "radical". That was an actual wide ranging operation by many conservatives who actually held power and used it against regular citizens. You are whining about some nobodies on Twitter with no power having opinions you don't like.

You people really do live in an alternate universe...

There is no threat at all, you are just trying to stir shit up to further your anti-PC agenda. If anyone called them out, Axl would make a genuine apology because he's grown up considerably since 1989. You should take notes.

uh oh, the angry kid is back. didn't mommy cut the edges off your samwich?

you should look up the word "commonplace."

Kate Smith just had her reputation destroyed because of a random fan. if you can't see how technology has changed the game and made everything and everyone accessible, you should try stepping out of mommy's basement. 

Hey, weren't you just castigating me for making insults? I guess now everyone knows what an utter hypocrite you are! 

Show me the 2,000 people who lost their jobs due to one person today, if it's so "commonplace". I'll wait...

Did Kate Smith lose her job? Nope. You lose. 

I guess that one example proves it's "commonplace", huh?

Not "one fan". Many. Why are you against the will of the people? Fascist.

When did I say anything about technology? You should try stepping out of mommy's basement.

[PermissionToLand]

I'm not too sure how much ambiguity or scope for misunderstanding there is in someone repeatedly saying "words are just words". If you actually believe that, please feel free to start backing it up. I'd suggest you don't think that "words are just words" at all, and modify your language in everyday life as everyone else does.

Here's your use of the n word, just to refresh your memory:

"If you are a black guy who is assaulting me maybe i'll answer you  "fuckin n"

The charming defence of calling someone fat and black a "chocolate mummy" was a good one too. How about trying that one in real life and away from a forum? 

NB. Following advising someone to "go back to school" with "plz" is somewhat ironic.

Again u missed my point...How many times i have to explain this? I think it's pretty clear and I'm really fed up, so I won't restart this...

Nope, your problem is that he discredited your point, so you're running away. You said "words are just words". It doesn't get any clearer than that. Why can't you just have an honest discussion like an adult?