Reply
Sat 8 Nov, 2003 09:37 am
Last week I was viewing a video tape of Bob Dylan's 35th Anniversary Celebration. All was love and harmony until Sinead O'Conner came forth to sing "I Believe in You." The already boisterous audience refused to calm down to let her be heard. Many of the people were miffed at her because she dissed the Pope. She bravely waited, and when it became apparent they were not going let her sing, Sinead had them adjust the microphone loud enough to be heard above the audience. She commenced to shout out the following Bob Marley Words:
Until the philosophy which hold one race superior
And another
Inferior
Is finally
And permanently discredited
And abandoned
Everywhere is war
Me say war
That until there no longer
First class and second class citizens of any nation
Until the color of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the color of his eyes
Me say war
That until the basic human rights
Are equally guaranteed to all
Without regard to race
Dis a war
That until that day
The dream of lasting peace
World citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued
But never attained
Now everywhere is war - war
The song is longer than that, but Sinead O'Conner quit shouting at that point and Chris Kristofferson escorted her backstage. It was a remarkable moment. I have had this tape for several years and I still find it spellbinding.
I got shivers. The whole sinead-ripping-the-pope's-picture reaction was the first real slap of reality for me that we were living in such a christian nation. I couldn't really 'get' why so many people were so upset with her.
Good on her for both 'incidents' I say. Very recent history has proven that this sort of display is neccessary.
I watched both events. I was shocked at her actions, shocked at my reaction and finally shocked at the crowds reaction. I was, at the time, vehemently trying to escape the catholic bonds that held so tight. It was a picture of man who symoblized so much tyranny and repressiveness to me. I couldn't understand my own feelings, but I was completely dismayed at the reaction of the crowd at Dylan's bash. Who knew so many people gave a damn about the pope, you'd have thought NYC was 100% catholic. What did the two events have in common, why were they out for blood. I still don't have the answers but I was damn proud of her, it could not have been easy facing off those boors.
Ceili
I had never hear Sinead's voice before that night. Now I like her very much.
Her first album it haunting. 'The lion and the cobra' if you can get, buy it. I still play it all the time.
The concert in question occured prior to Bill Clinton's re-election. Stevie Wonder speaks up for Clinton just when he launches into "Blowing in the Wind." It shows a new side (to me) of Booker T, who appears on most of the sets, and sings "Gotta Serve Somebody."
Other highlights (in my highly predjudiced opinion) were:
John Mellancamp - Like a Rolling Stone
Tommy Makem and the Clancy Brothers - When the Ship Comes In
Neil Young - Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues and All Along the Watchtower
Eric Clapton - Don't Think Twice
Tracy Chapman - The Times They Are a Changing
Eddie Vedor - Masters of War
Johnny and June Carter Cash - It Ain't Me Babe
Sophie B. Hawkins - I Want You (sometimes I put on the tape just to hear this one, which was excluded from the CD.)
i would have booed her as well. no need to show respect to those who choose to completely disrespect.
how would you react if it was a picture of clinton that she ripped up? it doesn't even matter if you're a fan of clinton or not. it would have been seen as a symbolic attack on america. there would have been bipartisan calls for a boycott on sinead o'conner.
anyway, sinead o'conner apologized years later.
Quote:Tearing up the Pope's photo was ridiculous. I want to leave all that anger behind me... I am a Catholic and had a very strong religious upbringing. But although I rebelled against the Pope in a vulgar way I did it because I was struggling against my faith, not because I lost it... It was a gesture of a prodigal daughter, although one who despite everything still hopes that she can find her true home in the church. That is because we are all the church. And sooner or later you realize that love has a much greater power than anger.
Ceili wrote:Who knew so many people gave a damn about the pope, you'd have thought NYC was 100% catholic.
40%. close enough. largest catholic population in the US.
She had no need to apologize in my book. She did what she did in the moment, which was honest. That people carry grudges and want revenge later is not her fault. I don't love Clinton, but, if I did, I would not express that kind of rage at one who ripped his picture. If someone does attack a person I love and admire I will defend the person being attacked with every fiber I can muster. But, I will not carry a grudge. I will not wish for an apology from the one whose words offended me. An example: An A2Ker attacked Harry Belafonte for remarks Belafonte made about Colin Powell. I defended Belafonte as hard as I could. The other A2Ker did not back down and neither did I. I bear the person no ill will and in fact still interact with the A2Ker quite frequently. What I'm saying is, We should not be too thin-skinned.
ye110
I'm confused, do you think the crowd was all catholic?
People skewer Clinton regularily, burn him in effigy, make jokes ect., people booed his wife at the 911 concert in NYC - does that mean it was a symbolic attack on America?
The pope isn't american. Sinead wasn't in Italy or Poland - I'm not sure I get your point.
of course the crowd wasn't all catholic. i doubt the entire crowd was booing her.
you can critisize the pope all you want if there are grounds to do so. but you don't rip up a picture. that is utterly disrespectful towards all catholics.
i was using clinton as an analogy. i am no fan of bush and opposed the war also but i wasn't too happy with the dixie chicks. if they had ripped up a picture of bush they would have been run out of the country.
my point is that it had less to do with religious beliefs than the complete lack of respect. i don't care if she believes that the pope is the antichrist as long as she is mature about it and she wasn't. she need not apologize for her views. she rightly apologized for her immaturity.
edgar, you had a difference of opinion with the "a2ker." imagine that harry belafonte was your spiritual leader and the a2ker ripped up his picture on national tv.
I would have the same reaction. People are, as I say, much too thin-skinned.
ok then let's try a little experiment.
edgar, your mother is so ugly that when she joined an ugly contest they told her "sorry no professionals."
(keep in mind that you cannot respond unless you have your own newspaper column since in this little experiment i am a public figure and i have no way of hearing you) the only way you would be able to disapprove of my comment would be show it at my next public appearance (say a bob dylan concert).
Me thinks you disagree with freedom of speech and/or expression. What is a picture anyway, are you saying a magazine or newspaper is sacrosanct? I can't throw one out if it has picture of political or religious royalty. It was a piece of paper not his body or soul...
I happen to think the chicks have balls for publicly saying what a hell of lot of people are too afraid to say for fear of the patriotic vitriol.
throwing out a picture isn't making a political statement. doing it on national tv is.
"saying what a hell of lot of people are too afraid too say" or too respectful to say?
i was against the war just like the dixie chicks were. i have voiced my opposition on the internet and in private conversation. what i wouldn't do is go to another country and attack the president. is it because i'm afraid? no. it's just damn disrespectful.
You say your piece, you do your thing. Then you live with the consequences. In her case, she saw an apology as an option. I disagree, but, I have to support her right to resolve the matter. The little scenario you've built up is no different. If someone tells the world your mama is ugly, you respond as your conscience tells you to respond. If the name caller (actually: truth teller) believes he told the truth he has the option to stand his ground or massage you by apologizing. It's his call and it's the way the world works.
ye110man wrote:of course the crowd wasn't all catholic. i doubt the entire crowd was booing her.
you can critisize the pope all you want if there are grounds to do so. but you don't rip up a picture. that is utterly disrespectful towards all catholics.
i was using clinton as an analogy. i am no fan of bush and opposed the war also but i wasn't too happy with the dixie chicks. if they had ripped up a picture of bush they would have been run out of the country.
my point is that it had less to do with religious beliefs than the complete lack of respect. i don't care if she believes that the pope is the antichrist as long as she is mature about it and she wasn't. she need not apologize for her views. she rightly apologized for her immaturity.
edgar, you had a difference of opinion with the "a2ker." imagine that harry belafonte was your spiritual leader and the a2ker ripped up his picture on national tv.
Catholic protection of paedophiles is disrespect to every human being with a concscience.
Wilso wrote:Catholic protection of paedophiles is disrespect to every human being with a concscience.
and catholics were outraged at that too.
edgar, how is ripping a picture telling the truth? it was an act meant purely to disgrace. no different than making fun of your mother.
much ado about nothing, much like flag burning.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace