Astroturfing - Most likely in preparation for the 2024 presidential election, trying to create these "grassroots" protest songs that seemingly come out of nowhere as a way to motivate their base...
Astroturfing - Most likely in preparation for the 2024 presidential election, trying to create these "grassroots" protest songs that seemingly come out of nowhere as a way to motivate their base of voters. It could be a play at going after younger voters I guess. It's so odd how these people seem to be so quiet when a Republican President is in office, and never seem concerned about the shift towards authoritarianism in the GOP. Can we get a country song bemoaning the sad, sorry state of Republicans?
I don't doubt that it is partly astroturfing. I don't know if the singer they mention (Oliver Anthony) was a willing or un-willing participate. I think he was a convenient cultural zeitgeist for...
I don't doubt that it is partly astroturfing. I don't know if the singer they mention (Oliver Anthony) was a willing or un-willing participate. I think he was a convenient cultural zeitgeist for right-wind pundits to try and gain "authenticity". I also would not be surprised if he used his new found cultural relevance and ride that to become a common talking head.
From this article I read earlier (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/25/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-republicans?), it seems like Oliver Anthony is not a willing...
There's plenty of great Folk/Outlaw Country musicians with some explicitly not-conservative songs, like Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson, but the song that immediately came to mind when you ask...
Can we get a country song bemoaning the sad, sorry state of Republicans?
There's plenty of great Folk/Outlaw Country musicians with some explicitly not-conservative songs, like Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson, but the song that immediately came to mind when you ask this question is one by JP Harris: called " Take Off Your Tin Foil Hat". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LakXBZ1vZgo
I just absolutely love the dude for releasing the anti-Qanon/GOP song fairly early on in the pandemic, and in direct response to all the misinformation following the 2020 US presidential election.
Under three minutes, too, which I point out for the knob claiming he couldn't express his thoughts succinctly enough. How about this for an opening line: "Well I read on Reddit that the Reds are coming and by Reds I mean blues that are secretly commies that were posthumously hired by Hugo Chavez to alter ballots"
He went on to clarify his position further. "That song has nothing to do with Joe Biden. It's a lot bigger than Joe Biden," he said. "That song is written about the people on that stage. And a lot more too, not just them, but definitely them.
Yeah, it kinda really bugs me that that song is on this list. I really take umbrage at the idea that he's espousing Qanon talking points and racism. I hate to parrot a common right-wing argument,...
Yeah, it kinda really bugs me that that song is on this list. I really take umbrage at the idea that he's espousing Qanon talking points and racism. I hate to parrot a common right-wing argument, but if you hear a song with a single line complaining about people on welfare wasting money on snacks, and you interpret that as a slight against black people... who's the racist here?
And then, thinking that one line represents his entire political ideology. The song is called Rich Men North of Richmond. I don't think he's putting all, or even most, of the blame on welfare recipients. I think he's putting the blame on the rich men (and women) north of Richmond.
I want to preface this with saying I don't think Oliver Anthony is personally a racist or anything like that. I don't know enough about him to have an opinion, and anyway I don't think his...
I hate to parrot a common right-wing argument, but if you hear a song with a single line complaining about people on welfare wasting money on snacks, and you interpret that as a slight against black people... who's the racist here?
I want to preface this with saying I don't think Oliver Anthony is personally a racist or anything like that. I don't know enough about him to have an opinion, and anyway I don't think his personal beliefs really matter here. The "welfare queen" caricature has been around for close to 40 years and from the beginning has carried with it racial connotations. He doesn't invoke that trope explicitly, but nevertheless given the history of discussions about welfare in the US I don't think its that big of a stretch to read into it racial intent. It's certainly not racist to have that takeaway, as you seem to imply here. You say that he is putting the blame on "rich men north of Richmond", but blame for what exactly? Well, among other things, apparently supporting welfare.
That one line probably doesn't represent his entire political ideology. But the song as a whole contains enough dog whistles to make me think that at the very least, he knows what he was doing. And in my opinion, it's not great.
But, even to his point "there's kids on the street with nothing to eat yet we bomb the middle east." Basically has the same flow. If the MIC is the problem and not the obese milking welfare why...
But, even to his point "there's kids on the street with nothing to eat yet we bomb the middle east." Basically has the same flow. If the MIC is the problem and not the obese milking welfare why doesn't his song say that?
What do you think about the term "north of Richmond" (capital of the confederacy)? I also found Žižek's analysis of the song interesting and it makes a convincing case that it is quite right wing.
What do you think about the term "north of Richmond" (capital of the confederacy)? I also found Žižek's analysis of the song interesting and it makes a convincing case that it is quite right wing.
The title reads as a reference to politicians in Washington DC. I've seen a lot of people saying that it somehow references the Confederacy, but I can't find any information about that (besides...
What do you think about the term "north of Richmond" (capital of the confederacy)?
The title reads as a reference to politicians in Washington DC. I've seen a lot of people saying that it somehow references the Confederacy, but I can't find any information about that (besides Richmond being the Confederate Capitol) because any google search for "north of Richmond" just returns page after page of articles about this song.
As for Žižek's article...
Because Richmond, Virginia, was the capital of the Confederacy during the Civil War – a clear hint at where Anthony’s political sympathies lie.
That's not a clear hint at all. You know what's north of Richmond? Washington DC. That tells me that he came up with a catchy title based on these two cities' relative location and the name of the one to the south.
And why fudge rounds? This term has a double meaning: (1) fudgy, round chocolate cookies, sandwiched together with chocolate buttercream; (2) when engaged in anal sex, a female loses control of her bowels, leaving a circular imprint around the base of the male’s genitalia – again, a hint at a link between the new rich and sexual perversions.
What the fuuuck? Is this satire? I'm not gonna bother reading the rest of the article.
Oliver Anthony was upset that his song was used at the Republican Primary Debate. He claims the phrase "rich men north of Richmond" includes the candidates at the debate.
There is no avenue of culture that the Cult of A Certain Personality won't try to infect and utilize, to appropriate (hey there's that word) without a dose of appreciation for it's history or even...
There is no avenue of culture that the Cult of A Certain Personality won't try to infect and utilize, to appropriate (hey there's that word) without a dose of appreciation for it's history or even a hint of irony.
Music undoubtedly is affected by current events and political movements as shown in the past with anti-Vietnam protest songs of the 60s leading into modern day with artists pulling inspiration...
Music undoubtedly is affected by current events and political movements as shown in the past with anti-Vietnam protest songs of the 60s leading into modern day with artists pulling inspiration from BLM protests and more. This trend of alt-right country appears to be flipping of that political unrest, but instead of advocating a desire for better, they push concerning alt-right ideologies. While Aldean's recent hit might be more egregious, someone like Wallen might be more palatable for some who aren't as aware of his racial outbursts.
Music is a great conveyer of frustration, pain, anger, and more. With it being weaponized for nefarious causes and reaching ears to the extent they do, should there be cause for concern of them being a symptom of rising sentiments that are alarming such as anti-trans rhetoric, dismissal of racial slurs, welfare tropes, and more?
I mean, this is nothing new, right? I mean, the whole national anthem right? Victory to early White Americans through violence! My country tis of thee…Fun personal fact, for a long time I heard...
I mean, this is nothing new, right? I mean, the whole national anthem right? Victory to early White Americans through violence! My country tis of thee…Fun personal fact, for a long time I heard the next line of that song as “of the icing.” I never could figure out what liber tea was either. But it made me hungry for lunch.
People will do anything for money, and there is currently a loud, large, and boisterous community of scared children enjoying a national outlet for their rage through campaign speeches and country songs.
Edit: sometimes i go too stream of consciousness. The Star Spangled Banner, which I assert has implied racism, is a different song which has the line I reference, which is My Country Tis of Thee (i think is the correct title?).
Like most racism, it’s hardly explicit. It’s implied by context. The song celebrates the “victory” of certain white people, achieved on the backs and violent sacrifice of other white and dark people.
Like most racism, it’s hardly explicit. It’s implied by context. The song celebrates the “victory” of certain white people, achieved on the backs and violent sacrifice of other white and dark people.
It's a song about the victory of certain racist white people who were fighting other racist white people. It's not really about race at all. You could argue that it symbolizes racism, or that it...
It's a song about the victory of certain racist white people who were fighting other racist white people. It's not really about race at all. You could argue that it symbolizes racism, or that it is racist in the sense that any cultural artifact of a racist culture is, but that would make it a bad example for your initial purpose. The racism implied within is tangential to the actual subject matter, which is literally a single battle.
It seems very unlikely that a song so narrow and so literal in scope would be chosen as the national anthem. Regardless, racism is not my only complaint about the song, it is also elitist,...
It seems very unlikely that a song so narrow and so literal in scope would be chosen as the national anthem.
Regardless, racism is not my only complaint about the song, it is also elitist, celebrates violence, and is meant to motivate working folks to risk their own lives and meager means in support of dubious ends.
You're free to make a case for your conclusions, but so far you have only gestured broadly. Don't those other complaints stand for almost every other national anthem too? The concept in itself...
You're free to make a case for your conclusions, but so far you have only gestured broadly. Don't those other complaints stand for almost every other national anthem too? The concept in itself stands to empower the nation-state, a purpose that implies violence and the exploitation of the socially disadvantaged.
That was in fact my initial point. These controversial country music songs are nothing new, and nothing out of the ordinary. Just like them, national anthems are boisterous, bombastic, state...
That was in fact my initial point. These controversial country music songs are nothing new, and nothing out of the ordinary. Just like them, national anthems are boisterous, bombastic, state sanctioned yosemite sam rants set to lowest common denominator music of 150 years ago.
I don't disagree that there's a huge number of issues with US patriotism, but that line isn't in the national anthem. "My country tis of thee" is a different song. "The Star-Spangled Banner" is...
My country tis of thee...
I don't disagree that there's a huge number of issues with US patriotism, but that line isn't in the national anthem. "My country tis of thee" is a different song. "The Star-Spangled Banner" is the anthem.
My question is....where the hell is the progressive protest music? We went through the Iraq war and all we got was BYOB and American Idiot. We went through the entire Trump Presidency, and we got...
My question is....where the hell is the progressive protest music? We went through the Iraq war and all we got was BYOB and American Idiot. We went through the entire Trump Presidency, and we got a rap by Eminem.
I suspect that the answer to both of these questions is the same: right wing corporations control the radiowaves and streaming algorithms.
One hypothesis: more progressive/leftie bands tend to be more anti-corporate, and due to that, end up eschewing larger distribution platforms (e.g., big stadium concerts, lots of airplay on Top 40...
One hypothesis: more progressive/leftie bands tend to be more anti-corporate, and due to that, end up eschewing larger distribution platforms (e.g., big stadium concerts, lots of airplay on Top 40 stations, less money spent on streaming/social media presence), instead trending toward smaller ones (coffee shop, college indie stations, and SoundCloud).
NOFX - The war on errorism - featured Dubya in clown makeup on the cover. NOFX also released a live album of their single "The Decline" with Trump on the cover. The band also owns Fat Wreck Chords...
NOFX - The war on errorism - featured Dubya in clown makeup on the cover.
NOFX also released a live album of their single "The Decline" with Trump on the cover.
The band also owns Fat Wreck Chords - the label all of these (and plenty of other bands) are published by.
Also during the Iraq war, KMFDM released WW3 which used samples of Bush's speeches amid the noise of commiting war crimes.
Bad Religion released "New Dark Ages" and "The Kids are Alt-Right" so we can't exactly say they've fallen off political messages.
In addition to what nukeman said, it might also have to do with enfranchisement. That is, music tends to be an outlet for the disenfranchised, and not enough folks really felt disenfranchised by...
In addition to what nukeman said, it might also have to do with enfranchisement. That is, music tends to be an outlet for the disenfranchised, and not enough folks really felt disenfranchised by Trump. Appalled, but not disenfranchised. There was lots of comedy and commentary about trump.
Now that abortion right has been revoked, we may hear more protest music.
The excellent media criticism podcast Citations Needed did an episode about this phenomenon a few years ago: Episode 119: How the Right Shaped Pop Country Music. And their most recent episode is...
I immediately thought of God Bless The U.S.A. by Lee Greenwood, a song that has enjoyed opportunist re-releases and covers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_the_U.S.A. In other words, this...
this is nothing new. i'm old enuff to remember the dumb asses latching onto "Born In the USA". both siding in their defense, it was before the various lyric sites. bonus: do a deep dive into "The...
this is nothing new. i'm old enuff to remember the dumb asses latching onto "Born In the USA". both siding in their defense, it was before the various lyric sites.
bonus: do a deep dive into "The Land Is Your Land".
This is of course a generalization but here it is. The right likes to give its base easily repeatable topics as rational discussion isn't their strong point. Think lock her up, cancel culture,...
This is of course a generalization but here it is.
The right likes to give its base easily repeatable topics as rational discussion isn't their strong point. Think lock her up, cancel culture, woke, critical race theory, war on christmas, etc...
They just discovered songs work too.
He goes on about Rich Men North of Richmond but then in the next line complains about fat people on food stamps. I don't care if he thinks his song is about taking down wealthy politicians, he's...
He goes on about Rich Men North of Richmond but then in the next line complains about fat people on food stamps. I don't care if he thinks his song is about taking down wealthy politicians, he's either supporting them or he's whistling another dog's tune.
I get attacking the rich. That's a classic move but it's not like John Prine said "that flag decal won't get you into heaven no more. It's high past time that Jesus called and said 'fuck the poor'"
But if his criticism is of those policies, as he might say in his interview, why does he attack the victims in his song? He doesn't say welfare making people fat which could carry the double...
But if his criticism is of those policies, as he might say in his interview, why does he attack the victims in his song? He doesn't say welfare making people fat which could carry the double meaning he seems to raise in interview - he said fat people milking welfare, which has other users in this thread talking about fat people buying too many snacks at the store and not the industry behind it.
Obese people buying sweets with their welfare ... while harsh ... is a harsh reality. I worked in a gas station for 3 years in a poor part of town and it was a completely eyeopening experience....
Obese people buying sweets with their welfare ... while harsh ... is a harsh reality.
I worked in a gas station for 3 years in a poor part of town and it was a completely eyeopening experience. 350lb people coming in multiple times a day to buy 44oz sodas and snack cakes/chips/candy etc (and normally not just one per trip)
They'd probably have 3000 calories from that alone plus they ate regular meals as well ..
It's absolutely sickening and shows a part of our society that is ignored and left to basically kill themselves with "food" and our tax dollars.. Plus the burden on our health care system. It's unjust for everyone involved.
Michael Pollan in his book Omnivores Dilemma discusses how snack foods are designed to be addictive and to make it less likely for you to feel full when you eat them. Very smart people design them...
Michael Pollan in his book Omnivores Dilemma discusses how snack foods are designed to be addictive and to make it less likely for you to feel full when you eat them. Very smart people design them such that more sales happen. Like casino machines.
I think that's why a lot of the newer snacks released have that airy/puffy texture, because it doesn't feel very substantial in the stomach. It's pretty sickening really.
make it less likely for you to feel full when you eat them
I think that's why a lot of the newer snacks released have that airy/puffy texture, because it doesn't feel very substantial in the stomach. It's pretty sickening really.
Personally to me it's not satisfying at all, biting into it feels like nothing and you just want more and more .. I've also noticed a slightly lower amount of seasoning on certain snack foods...
Personally to me it's not satisfying at all, biting into it feels like nothing and you just want more and more ..
I've also noticed a slightly lower amount of seasoning on certain snack foods which again, I believe they've done to get to you "eat just one more" because the last one "wasn't quite right" or "didn't quite satisfy".
It used to be that like 50% of the "chips" had what I'd consider a good amount of seasoning on them, these days it's like 20% so you keep searching for the "good one" and eat way more of the bag.
The nostalgic flavor/satisfaction isn't there so you keep eating.
It isn't just snack foods. Huberman Lab has talked about studies showing that the gut has its own nervous system, and even when you put sugar directly into the stomach (bypassing any pleasurable...
Michael Pollan in his book Omnivores Dilemma discusses how snack foods are designed to be addictive and to make it less likely for you to feel full when you eat them. Very smart people design them such that more sales happen. Like casino machines.
It isn't just snack foods. Huberman Lab has talked about studies showing that the gut has its own nervous system, and even when you put sugar directly into the stomach (bypassing any pleasurable sense of sweet taste) the gut nervous system will send signals to the brain telling you to eat more. So now you see companies adding sugar even to non-sweets and non-snack foods to hack your brain so you eat more of their food and give them more profit. Bread is a perfect example, you don't need to have a bunch of added sugar in bread, but so much bread has added sugar. Or chinese food, which also has a bunch of added sugar even in dishes that are savory (i.e. not just the ones covered in sweet orange sauce).
Also reality: plenty of welfare recipients buying the food that they need for their family to the extent that they can. And plenty of people not on welfare who are obese and spending their money...
Also reality: plenty of welfare recipients buying the food that they need for their family to the extent that they can. And plenty of people not on welfare who are obese and spending their money on junk food too. I really can't help but see that line as expressing anger that his "tax money is going to support these lazy, fat slackers" or something like that.
I mean if he hadn't specified obese ... it'd sound like he was being negative about welfare in general, you realize that right? Which would you prefer? He's calling out the fact that obese people...
I mean if he hadn't specified obese ... it'd sound like he was being negative about welfare in general, you realize that right? Which would you prefer?
He's calling out the fact that obese people are killing themselves with welfare which is not what it was intended for and is absolutely sickening that companies are profiting off it while the rest of the world stands by and watches.
It already reads to me as though he is pissed off his tax money is going to these 5’ 3” obese people buying fudge rounds. He places the blame for this squarely on welfare recipients, calling them...
It already reads to me as though he is pissed off his tax money is going to these 5’ 3” obese people buying fudge rounds. He places the blame for this squarely on welfare recipients, calling them “obese milking welfare”. To me, that implies culpability on the part of the recipient in that they are knowingly “taking advantage” of their welfare. If his actual point was some more complex statement about food scarcity and unhealthy diets in the US, which I personally doubt despite him mentioning this in interviews after the fact, then he failed to really get that across. In his interviews he makes clear that this line is meant to show something like “welfare keeps people dependent on the government” which there is good evidence is not true.
There is certainly a food crisis in the Us in that it is often cheaper to buy unhealthier foods. It is also true that people on welfare on average tend to eat less healthy food, probably because of this. I don’t think any of those points are effectively addressed by the lyrics:
Lord, we got folks in the street, ain't got nothin' to eat
And the obese milkin' welfare
Well, God, if you're 5-foot-3 and you're 300 pounds
Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds
Astroturfing - Most likely in preparation for the 2024 presidential election, trying to create these "grassroots" protest songs that seemingly come out of nowhere as a way to motivate their base of voters. It could be a play at going after younger voters I guess. It's so odd how these people seem to be so quiet when a Republican President is in office, and never seem concerned about the shift towards authoritarianism in the GOP. Can we get a country song bemoaning the sad, sorry state of Republicans?
I don't doubt that it is partly astroturfing. I don't know if the singer they mention (Oliver Anthony) was a willing or un-willing participate. I think he was a convenient cultural zeitgeist for right-wind pundits to try and gain "authenticity". I also would not be surprised if he used his new found cultural relevance and ride that to become a common talking head.
From this article I read earlier (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/25/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-republicans?), it seems like Oliver Anthony is not a willing participant. But he could still become a talking head regardless.
There's plenty of great Folk/Outlaw Country musicians with some explicitly not-conservative songs, like Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson, but the song that immediately came to mind when you ask this question is one by JP Harris: called " Take Off Your Tin Foil Hat". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LakXBZ1vZgo
He's got other songs that could possibly be on a pop country station: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TwhlwJeUkc
And others that are explicitly old traditional songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ttYq5THfns
I just absolutely love the dude for releasing the anti-Qanon/GOP song fairly early on in the pandemic, and in direct response to all the misinformation following the 2020 US presidential election.
Under three minutes, too, which I point out for the knob claiming he couldn't express his thoughts succinctly enough. How about this for an opening line: "Well I read on Reddit that the Reds are coming and by Reds I mean blues that are secretly commies that were posthumously hired by Hugo Chavez to alter ballots"
So at least one of these singers has responded and said the Republicans claiming to support him have got him all wrong.
https://themessenger.com/entertainment/oliver-anthony-rich-men-north-of-richmond-republican-debate
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/rich-men-north-of-richmond-singer-laughs-at-use-of-his-song-at-republican-debate-i-wrote-that-song-about-those-people/
He went on to clarify his position further. "That song has nothing to do with Joe Biden. It's a lot bigger than Joe Biden," he said. "That song is written about the people on that stage. And a lot more too, not just them, but definitely them.
Yeah, it kinda really bugs me that that song is on this list. I really take umbrage at the idea that he's espousing Qanon talking points and racism. I hate to parrot a common right-wing argument, but if you hear a song with a single line complaining about people on welfare wasting money on snacks, and you interpret that as a slight against black people... who's the racist here?
And then, thinking that one line represents his entire political ideology. The song is called Rich Men North of Richmond. I don't think he's putting all, or even most, of the blame on welfare recipients. I think he's putting the blame on the rich men (and women) north of Richmond.
I want to preface this with saying I don't think Oliver Anthony is personally a racist or anything like that. I don't know enough about him to have an opinion, and anyway I don't think his personal beliefs really matter here. The "welfare queen" caricature has been around for close to 40 years and from the beginning has carried with it racial connotations. He doesn't invoke that trope explicitly, but nevertheless given the history of discussions about welfare in the US I don't think its that big of a stretch to read into it racial intent. It's certainly not racist to have that takeaway, as you seem to imply here. You say that he is putting the blame on "rich men north of Richmond", but blame for what exactly? Well, among other things, apparently supporting welfare.
That one line probably doesn't represent his entire political ideology. But the song as a whole contains enough dog whistles to make me think that at the very least, he knows what he was doing. And in my opinion, it's not great.
The stereotype does indeed carry a racial component, and often refers to a "indolent urban black woman" but its origin is a pretty crazy story: https://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html
That is interesting because for almost as long as it has existed the term has carried racial connotations.
Even if he is wrong about welfare recipients, as you say it is one line. Artists are imperfect. So are the rest of us.
But, even to his point "there's kids on the street with nothing to eat yet we bomb the middle east." Basically has the same flow. If the MIC is the problem and not the obese milking welfare why doesn't his song say that?
Thank you for sharing that!
What do you think about the term "north of Richmond" (capital of the confederacy)? I also found Žižek's analysis of the song interesting and it makes a convincing case that it is quite right wing.
The title reads as a reference to politicians in Washington DC. I've seen a lot of people saying that it somehow references the Confederacy, but I can't find any information about that (besides Richmond being the Confederate Capitol) because any google search for "north of Richmond" just returns page after page of articles about this song.
As for Žižek's article...
That's not a clear hint at all. You know what's north of Richmond? Washington DC. That tells me that he came up with a catchy title based on these two cities' relative location and the name of the one to the south.
What the fuuuck? Is this satire? I'm not gonna bother reading the rest of the article.
Oliver Anthony lost a lot of conservative fans when he gave an interview without the twangy accent where he said he was all behind diversity
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oliver-anthony-republican-accent-revealed-b2398458.html
Oliver Anthony was upset that his song was used at the Republican Primary Debate. He claims the phrase "rich men north of Richmond" includes the candidates at the debate.
https://themessenger.com/entertainment/oliver-anthony-rich-men-north-of-richmond-republican-debate
There is no avenue of culture that the Cult of A Certain Personality won't try to infect and utilize, to appropriate (hey there's that word) without a dose of appreciation for it's history or even a hint of irony.
Music undoubtedly is affected by current events and political movements as shown in the past with anti-Vietnam protest songs of the 60s leading into modern day with artists pulling inspiration from BLM protests and more. This trend of alt-right country appears to be flipping of that political unrest, but instead of advocating a desire for better, they push concerning alt-right ideologies. While Aldean's recent hit might be more egregious, someone like Wallen might be more palatable for some who aren't as aware of his racial outbursts.
Music is a great conveyer of frustration, pain, anger, and more. With it being weaponized for nefarious causes and reaching ears to the extent they do, should there be cause for concern of them being a symptom of rising sentiments that are alarming such as anti-trans rhetoric, dismissal of racial slurs, welfare tropes, and more?
It's not that hard to "game" the Top 100
I mean, this is nothing new, right? I mean, the whole national anthem right? Victory to early White Americans through violence! My country tis of thee…Fun personal fact, for a long time I heard the next line of that song as “of the icing.” I never could figure out what liber tea was either. But it made me hungry for lunch.
People will do anything for money, and there is currently a loud, large, and boisterous community of scared children enjoying a national outlet for their rage through campaign speeches and country songs.
Edit: sometimes i go too stream of consciousness. The Star Spangled Banner, which I assert has implied racism, is a different song which has the line I reference, which is My Country Tis of Thee (i think is the correct title?).
Like most racism, it’s hardly explicit. It’s implied by context. The song celebrates the “victory” of certain white people, achieved on the backs and violent sacrifice of other white and dark people.
What do you think the song is about?
It's a song about the victory of certain racist white people who were fighting other racist white people. It's not really about race at all. You could argue that it symbolizes racism, or that it is racist in the sense that any cultural artifact of a racist culture is, but that would make it a bad example for your initial purpose. The racism implied within is tangential to the actual subject matter, which is literally a single battle.
It seems very unlikely that a song so narrow and so literal in scope would be chosen as the national anthem.
Regardless, racism is not my only complaint about the song, it is also elitist, celebrates violence, and is meant to motivate working folks to risk their own lives and meager means in support of dubious ends.
You're free to make a case for your conclusions, but so far you have only gestured broadly. Don't those other complaints stand for almost every other national anthem too? The concept in itself stands to empower the nation-state, a purpose that implies violence and the exploitation of the socially disadvantaged.
That was in fact my initial point. These controversial country music songs are nothing new, and nothing out of the ordinary. Just like them, national anthems are boisterous, bombastic, state sanctioned yosemite sam rants set to lowest common denominator music of 150 years ago.
I don't disagree that there's a huge number of issues with US patriotism, but that line isn't in the national anthem. "My country tis of thee" is a different song. "The Star-Spangled Banner" is the anthem.
I’m aware, but I see my post conflates the songs.
My question is....where the hell is the progressive protest music? We went through the Iraq war and all we got was BYOB and American Idiot. We went through the entire Trump Presidency, and we got a rap by Eminem.
I suspect that the answer to both of these questions is the same: right wing corporations control the radiowaves and streaming algorithms.
One hypothesis: more progressive/leftie bands tend to be more anti-corporate, and due to that, end up eschewing larger distribution platforms (e.g., big stadium concerts, lots of airplay on Top 40 stations, less money spent on streaming/social media presence), instead trending toward smaller ones (coffee shop, college indie stations, and SoundCloud).
NOFX - The war on errorism - featured Dubya in clown makeup on the cover.
NOFX also released a live album of their single "The Decline" with Trump on the cover.
The band also owns Fat Wreck Chords - the label all of these (and plenty of other bands) are published by.
Also during the Iraq war, KMFDM released WW3 which used samples of Bush's speeches amid the noise of commiting war crimes.
Bad Religion released "New Dark Ages" and "The Kids are Alt-Right" so we can't exactly say they've fallen off political messages.
I mean there is Flobots, the only cool political rap group
In addition to what nukeman said, it might also have to do with enfranchisement. That is, music tends to be an outlet for the disenfranchised, and not enough folks really felt disenfranchised by Trump. Appalled, but not disenfranchised. There was lots of comedy and commentary about trump.
Now that abortion right has been revoked, we may hear more protest music.
The excellent media criticism podcast Citations Needed did an episode about this phenomenon a few years ago: Episode 119: How the Right Shaped Pop Country Music.
And their most recent episode is about this latest round of it: News Brief: Attack of the Salt of the Earth Republican Country Music Stars.
I immediately thought of God Bless The U.S.A. by Lee Greenwood, a song that has enjoyed opportunist re-releases and covers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_the_U.S.A.
In other words, this is not a new phenomenon in American popular music.
this is nothing new. i'm old enuff to remember the dumb asses latching onto "Born In the USA". both siding in their defense, it was before the various lyric sites.
bonus: do a deep dive into "The Land Is Your Land".
This is of course a generalization but here it is.
The right likes to give its base easily repeatable topics as rational discussion isn't their strong point. Think lock her up, cancel culture, woke, critical race theory, war on christmas, etc...
They just discovered songs work too.
He goes on about Rich Men North of Richmond but then in the next line complains about fat people on food stamps. I don't care if he thinks his song is about taking down wealthy politicians, he's either supporting them or he's whistling another dog's tune.
I get attacking the rich. That's a classic move but it's not like John Prine said "that flag decal won't get you into heaven no more. It's high past time that Jesus called and said 'fuck the poor'"
But if his criticism is of those policies, as he might say in his interview, why does he attack the victims in his song? He doesn't say welfare making people fat which could carry the double meaning he seems to raise in interview - he said fat people milking welfare, which has other users in this thread talking about fat people buying too many snacks at the store and not the industry behind it.
Obese people buying sweets with their welfare ... while harsh ... is a harsh reality.
I worked in a gas station for 3 years in a poor part of town and it was a completely eyeopening experience. 350lb people coming in multiple times a day to buy 44oz sodas and snack cakes/chips/candy etc (and normally not just one per trip)
They'd probably have 3000 calories from that alone plus they ate regular meals as well ..
It's absolutely sickening and shows a part of our society that is ignored and left to basically kill themselves with "food" and our tax dollars.. Plus the burden on our health care system. It's unjust for everyone involved.
Michael Pollan in his book Omnivores Dilemma discusses how snack foods are designed to be addictive and to make it less likely for you to feel full when you eat them. Very smart people design them such that more sales happen. Like casino machines.
I think that's why a lot of the newer snacks released have that airy/puffy texture, because it doesn't feel very substantial in the stomach. It's pretty sickening really.
Personally to me it's not satisfying at all, biting into it feels like nothing and you just want more and more ..
I've also noticed a slightly lower amount of seasoning on certain snack foods which again, I believe they've done to get to you "eat just one more" because the last one "wasn't quite right" or "didn't quite satisfy".
I noticed it most with Ritz Sour Cream & Onion Toasted Chips - they are both way more airy and have way less seasoning than they did 10 ish years ago.
It used to be that like 50% of the "chips" had what I'd consider a good amount of seasoning on them, these days it's like 20% so you keep searching for the "good one" and eat way more of the bag.
The nostalgic flavor/satisfaction isn't there so you keep eating.
It isn't just snack foods. Huberman Lab has talked about studies showing that the gut has its own nervous system, and even when you put sugar directly into the stomach (bypassing any pleasurable sense of sweet taste) the gut nervous system will send signals to the brain telling you to eat more. So now you see companies adding sugar even to non-sweets and non-snack foods to hack your brain so you eat more of their food and give them more profit. Bread is a perfect example, you don't need to have a bunch of added sugar in bread, but so much bread has added sugar. Or chinese food, which also has a bunch of added sugar even in dishes that are savory (i.e. not just the ones covered in sweet orange sauce).
Also reality: plenty of welfare recipients buying the food that they need for their family to the extent that they can. And plenty of people not on welfare who are obese and spending their money on junk food too. I really can't help but see that line as expressing anger that his "tax money is going to support these lazy, fat slackers" or something like that.
I mean if he hadn't specified obese ... it'd sound like he was being negative about welfare in general, you realize that right? Which would you prefer?
He's calling out the fact that obese people are killing themselves with welfare which is not what it was intended for and is absolutely sickening that companies are profiting off it while the rest of the world stands by and watches.
It already reads to me as though he is pissed off his tax money is going to these 5’ 3” obese people buying fudge rounds. He places the blame for this squarely on welfare recipients, calling them “obese milking welfare”. To me, that implies culpability on the part of the recipient in that they are knowingly “taking advantage” of their welfare. If his actual point was some more complex statement about food scarcity and unhealthy diets in the US, which I personally doubt despite him mentioning this in interviews after the fact, then he failed to really get that across. In his interviews he makes clear that this line is meant to show something like “welfare keeps people dependent on the government” which there is good evidence is not true.
There is certainly a food crisis in the Us in that it is often cheaper to buy unhealthier foods. It is also true that people on welfare on average tend to eat less healthy food, probably because of this. I don’t think any of those points are effectively addressed by the lyrics: