I am not particularly informed about South Africa under aparthied etc, or about the homelands, but YourValentine's evidence seems valid etc.
But, I find it strange that Queen are often critised for playing Sun City, yet their South American tours are fine, even though some of these countries were run by ruthless dictators. I'm not sure exactly which S. Am countries had death squads - was that Venezuela?
I guess these countries weren't blacklisted etc, but I would have thought there were worse attrocities there than South Africa. I'm not condoning apartheid at all, and as I said, I don't know the detail, but I don't remember large scale executions in S. Africa - lots of discimination etc, of course. Please don't be too harsh if I'm showing my ignorance!!
So, while I'm sure the money was a big draw for playing Sun City, I wouldn't be surprised if Queen's management spinned the mixed audience thing to the hilt (esp. with Brian), so maybe the band didn't realise until they were committed. I think they have morals, but they also have business sense.
And I don't personally consider it to be a big mistake or issue. I don't really see the sense in stopping the "general population" from seeing artists. If we took that approach with S africa, why didn't Wham get hammered for playing in Communist China, with it's history of attrocities (still probably in place in the '80s I expect).
I think it's probably better to let artists play such places, even if it is to rich whites and a splattering of africans. I'm not sure much is achieved by depriving people of these things. If you leave such places cut off from the world, where does the inclination come to change it? Where does the influence come so that people realise there's a different way?
That's my view anyway.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
-- deleted as I quoted instead of edited by mistake
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Oberon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
But, I find it strange that Queen are often critised for playing Sun City, yet their South American tours are fine, even though some of these countries were run by ruthless dictators. I'm not sure exactly which S. Am countries had death squads - was that Venezuela?
[/QUOTE]
Nope, Brazil and Argentina. Queen were, in fact, invited to have dinner with the dictator from Argentina, if I'm not mistaken, and only Roger declined it.
The big difference here is - the world recognized the military dictatorship in these countries as legitimate. The U.S. supported the whole process. Nowadays it's known that agents from the government in Brazil responsible for torturing anyone who spoke against the government took "lessons" with agents from the North American government. What justified our dictatorships was the fact that they prevented us from joining the socialist countries during the Cold War. Our dictators were loyal to the United States, therefore, it was okay if students, journalists and artists were being arrested, tortured and either killed or sent to other countries, it was all for "greater good".
But, I find it strange that Queen are often critised for playing Sun City, yet their South American tours are fine, even though some of these countries were run by ruthless dictators. I'm not sure exactly which S. Am countries had death squads - was that Venezuela?
[/QUOTE]
Nope, Brazil and Argentina. Queen were, in fact, invited to have dinner with the dictator from Argentina, if I'm not mistaken, and only Roger declined it.
The big difference here is - the world recognized the military dictatorship in these countries as legitimate. The U.S. supported the whole process. Nowadays it's known that agents from the government in Brazil responsible for torturing anyone who spoke against the government took "lessons" with agents from the North American government. What justified our dictatorships was the fact that they prevented us from joining the socialist countries during the Cold War. Our dictators were loyal to the United States, therefore, it was okay if students, journalists and artists were being arrested, tortured and either killed or sent to other countries, it was all for "greater good".
I think the main difference between the sun city-gig and the Latin American tours is the fact that Queen broke an international boycott in South Africa, and that definitly seems like a political statement. The fascist states like Argentina back then SHOULD have been subject to international boycott, but however weren't. Breaking a boycott like in Sun City could very well be explained as supporting South Africa. I trust that wasn't the case, but it remains a big mistake.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Oberon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I am not particularly informed about South Africa under aparthied etc, or about the homelands, but YourValentine's evidence seems valid etc.
But, I find it strange that Queen are often critised for playing Sun City, yet their South American tours are fine, even though some of these countries were run by ruthless dictators. I'm not sure exactly which S. Am countries had death squads - was that Venezuela?
I guess these countries weren't blacklisted etc, but I would have thought there were worse attrocities there than South Africa. I'm not condoning apartheid at all, and as I said, I don't know the detail, but I don't remember large scale executions in S. Africa - lots of discimination etc, of course. Please don't be too harsh if I'm showing my ignorance!!
So, while I'm sure the money was a big draw for playing Sun City, I wouldn't be surprised if Queen's management spinned the mixed audience thing to the hilt (esp. with Brian), so maybe the band didn't realise until they were committed. I think they have morals, but they also have business sense.
And I don't personally consider it to be a big mistake or issue. I don't really see the sense in stopping the "general population" from seeing artists. If we took that approach with S africa, why didn't Wham get hammered for playing in Communist China, with it's history of attrocities (still probably in place in the '80s I expect).
I think it's probably better to let artists play such places, even if it is to rich whites and a splattering of africans. I'm not sure much is achieved by depriving people of these things. If you leave such places cut off from the world, where does the inclination come to change it? Where does the influence come so that people realise there's a different way?
That's my view anyway.
[/QUOTE]
First of all you can be sure that the rich white audience in Sun City did know the different way.
Even if I repeat myself: I do NOT think that a band playing a couple of concerts can be held accountable for the injustice in the countries they play or for Human Right violations which are committed there. Queen always called themselves an unpolitical band and did not mind the political system of the countries they performed in - which is an acceptable attitude for a Rock band imo. In the case of Sun City, however, Queen ignored a world wide UN boycott as well as English Union regulations. Spike Edney said he even denied to have been there in order not to be excluded from the Union.
Sun City was an obscenely rich an glittering place in the midst of the poorest environment you can think of. It was only for rich white South Africans who wanted to enjoy themselves in ways which were not allowed in South Africa itself (porn, gambling, sex shows) and therefore the city was built on the "homeland". To play there needed so much closing eyes to misery and hopelessness that it required either total cynicism or incredible stupidity to do it. Things got even worse when Freddie said in public that "so much money" was in there - he made the band look like a bunch of greedy, careless boneheads. Brian May claimed that Queen played to a mixed racial audience and that they helped to overcome racial barriers which was a ridiculously unrealistic estimation of the situation. In fact, they helped the Apartheid system - and exactly that was said by the ANC and all freedom fighters inside and outside of South Africa.
Again - I believe that dragging up the Sun City concerts is mostly done by hypocrits who never crossed a street to help someone in need. Surely, Nelson Mandela forgave people who did much much worse and he has no problem with Brian and Roger supporting the 46664 cause, so it should certainly be okay for a British journalist. But history cannot be re-written and the Sun City concerts will always be a very dark chapter in the Queen history which won't be forgotten. Whenever someone wants to make the band look bad they will come up with the Sun City issue and it will always be the bad decision they made for money.
But, I find it strange that Queen are often critised for playing Sun City, yet their South American tours are fine, even though some of these countries were run by ruthless dictators. I'm not sure exactly which S. Am countries had death squads - was that Venezuela?
I guess these countries weren't blacklisted etc, but I would have thought there were worse attrocities there than South Africa. I'm not condoning apartheid at all, and as I said, I don't know the detail, but I don't remember large scale executions in S. Africa - lots of discimination etc, of course. Please don't be too harsh if I'm showing my ignorance!!
So, while I'm sure the money was a big draw for playing Sun City, I wouldn't be surprised if Queen's management spinned the mixed audience thing to the hilt (esp. with Brian), so maybe the band didn't realise until they were committed. I think they have morals, but they also have business sense.
And I don't personally consider it to be a big mistake or issue. I don't really see the sense in stopping the "general population" from seeing artists. If we took that approach with S africa, why didn't Wham get hammered for playing in Communist China, with it's history of attrocities (still probably in place in the '80s I expect).
I think it's probably better to let artists play such places, even if it is to rich whites and a splattering of africans. I'm not sure much is achieved by depriving people of these things. If you leave such places cut off from the world, where does the inclination come to change it? Where does the influence come so that people realise there's a different way?
That's my view anyway.
[/QUOTE]
First of all you can be sure that the rich white audience in Sun City did know the different way.
Even if I repeat myself: I do NOT think that a band playing a couple of concerts can be held accountable for the injustice in the countries they play or for Human Right violations which are committed there. Queen always called themselves an unpolitical band and did not mind the political system of the countries they performed in - which is an acceptable attitude for a Rock band imo. In the case of Sun City, however, Queen ignored a world wide UN boycott as well as English Union regulations. Spike Edney said he even denied to have been there in order not to be excluded from the Union.
Sun City was an obscenely rich an glittering place in the midst of the poorest environment you can think of. It was only for rich white South Africans who wanted to enjoy themselves in ways which were not allowed in South Africa itself (porn, gambling, sex shows) and therefore the city was built on the "homeland". To play there needed so much closing eyes to misery and hopelessness that it required either total cynicism or incredible stupidity to do it. Things got even worse when Freddie said in public that "so much money" was in there - he made the band look like a bunch of greedy, careless boneheads. Brian May claimed that Queen played to a mixed racial audience and that they helped to overcome racial barriers which was a ridiculously unrealistic estimation of the situation. In fact, they helped the Apartheid system - and exactly that was said by the ANC and all freedom fighters inside and outside of South Africa.
Again - I believe that dragging up the Sun City concerts is mostly done by hypocrits who never crossed a street to help someone in need. Surely, Nelson Mandela forgave people who did much much worse and he has no problem with Brian and Roger supporting the 46664 cause, so it should certainly be okay for a British journalist. But history cannot be re-written and the Sun City concerts will always be a very dark chapter in the Queen history which won't be forgotten. Whenever someone wants to make the band look bad they will come up with the Sun City issue and it will always be the bad decision they made for money.
As far as I remember John also said something along the line with "we cant be bothered by politics, were only doing business and making money" at the time.
Im not sure Brian is bullshitting with the mixed-race audience, but he was incredibly naive. As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.
Steve Van Zandt, who was the head of Artists against apartheid, said sometime ago that he had a meeting with Queen about the concerts after they got back from Sun city. Ackording to him the band had just been incredibly naive and unaware of the situation and showed genuine regret.
Im not sure Brian is bullshitting with the mixed-race audience, but he was incredibly naive. As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.
Steve Van Zandt, who was the head of Artists against apartheid, said sometime ago that he had a meeting with Queen about the concerts after they got back from Sun city. Ackording to him the band had just been incredibly naive and unaware of the situation and showed genuine regret.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Steve Van Zandt, who was the head of Artists against apartheid, said sometime ago that he had a meeting with Queen about the concerts after they got back from Sun city. Ackording to him the band had just been incredibly naive and unaware of the situation and showed genuine regret.
[/QUOTE]
It was presumably easier for them to show regret after they cashed their pay cheques. I wonder how brian may rationalised Sun City, esp. as he has shown an interest in the plight of Native Americans* There's an obvious comparison to be made between black south africans and native american: did Brian ever make the connection?
*a vague interest sure enough
Steve Van Zandt, who was the head of Artists against apartheid, said sometime ago that he had a meeting with Queen about the concerts after they got back from Sun city. Ackording to him the band had just been incredibly naive and unaware of the situation and showed genuine regret.
[/QUOTE]
It was presumably easier for them to show regret after they cashed their pay cheques. I wonder how brian may rationalised Sun City, esp. as he has shown an interest in the plight of Native Americans* There's an obvious comparison to be made between black south africans and native american: did Brian ever make the connection?
*a vague interest sure enough
Maybe so, but Little Steven was well satisfied with what they had to say so who knows.
I think theyve more than made up for what they did being as active in the 46664 project as they are anyway. Maybe out of bad consciousness or because of Freddie dying of AIDs but still. They both seemed very moved when Madiba made his speech, Brian even seemed to have tears in his eyes, so I would guess they are sincerely interested in what they are doing.
Playing a charity-gig for Nelson Mandelas birthday is sure a good way to make up for what they did so I dont know what this journalist is on about. Either he has grossly misunderstood what the evening was about or hes just trying to promote himself or he has never liked queen. Who knows...
As I dont think that Brian supports apartheid I dont see it as relevant if hes made the connection between Native americans and South Africa.
I think theyve more than made up for what they did being as active in the 46664 project as they are anyway. Maybe out of bad consciousness or because of Freddie dying of AIDs but still. They both seemed very moved when Madiba made his speech, Brian even seemed to have tears in his eyes, so I would guess they are sincerely interested in what they are doing.
Playing a charity-gig for Nelson Mandelas birthday is sure a good way to make up for what they did so I dont know what this journalist is on about. Either he has grossly misunderstood what the evening was about or hes just trying to promote himself or he has never liked queen. Who knows...
As I dont think that Brian supports apartheid I dont see it as relevant if hes made the connection between Native americans and South Africa.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Maybe so, but Little Steven was well satisfied with what they had to say so who knows.
I think theyve more than made up for what they did being as active in the 46664 project as they are anyway. Maybe out of bad consciousness or because of Freddie dying of AIDs but still. They both seemed very moved when Madiba made his speech, Brian even seemed to have tears in his eyes, so I would guess they are sincerely interested in what they are doing.
Playing a charity-gig for Nelson Mandelas birthday is sure a good way to make up for what they did so I dont know what this journalist is on about. Either he has grossly misunderstood what the evening was about or hes just trying to promote himself or he has never liked queen. Who knows...
As I dont think that Brian supports apartheid I dont see it as relevant if hes made the connection between Native americans and South Africa.[/QUOTE]
But that's the point isn't it. By going to South Africa at that time they were supporting apartheid. Everyone knew what was going on: I find it beyond belief that Queen didn't know, that they weren't advised of the situation by management and lawyers. As for my musing about native americans, think it's relevant to the point I was getting at, which is that Brian's interest in them must be fairly superficial if he could not see the connection between both experiences. But I accept I'm digressing a bit. I think we all have to accept that Queen put money before principle at Sun City and it's therefroe hard to take seriously any of their past liberal political stances (not that there were many, but certainly White Man and is This the World We Created look a bit shallow when seen against the Sun City concert). I accept also that times change and so do people, but let's also not whitewash what they did in the past.
I think theyve more than made up for what they did being as active in the 46664 project as they are anyway. Maybe out of bad consciousness or because of Freddie dying of AIDs but still. They both seemed very moved when Madiba made his speech, Brian even seemed to have tears in his eyes, so I would guess they are sincerely interested in what they are doing.
Playing a charity-gig for Nelson Mandelas birthday is sure a good way to make up for what they did so I dont know what this journalist is on about. Either he has grossly misunderstood what the evening was about or hes just trying to promote himself or he has never liked queen. Who knows...
As I dont think that Brian supports apartheid I dont see it as relevant if hes made the connection between Native americans and South Africa.[/QUOTE]
But that's the point isn't it. By going to South Africa at that time they were supporting apartheid. Everyone knew what was going on: I find it beyond belief that Queen didn't know, that they weren't advised of the situation by management and lawyers. As for my musing about native americans, think it's relevant to the point I was getting at, which is that Brian's interest in them must be fairly superficial if he could not see the connection between both experiences. But I accept I'm digressing a bit. I think we all have to accept that Queen put money before principle at Sun City and it's therefroe hard to take seriously any of their past liberal political stances (not that there were many, but certainly White Man and is This the World We Created look a bit shallow when seen against the Sun City concert). I accept also that times change and so do people, but let's also not whitewash what they did in the past.
I think that Is this the world we created, as you mentioned, gets a whole lot less moving by the band going off to play sun city just months after it was released.
And no one has mentioned Live Aid, just a year after.
And no one has mentioned Live Aid, just a year after.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.[/QUOTE]
And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.
And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.[/QUOTE]
And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.
[/QUOTE]
By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.
And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.
[/QUOTE]
By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.[/QUOTE]
And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.
[/QUOTE]
By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.[/QUOTE]
This is a very good point and certainly true. However it is also easy to overestimate the awareness of the crimes of the apartheidregime at the time. Especially among rock superstars who have never really lived in the "real" world.
But the UN embargo is a good point and I dont buy for one second that it wasnt the money that made them go there. Maybe they werent fully aware of what was going on and regretted it later, but they sure werent going on some sort of "peace-mission".
Thet were far from alone in playing sun city though.
And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.
[/QUOTE]
By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.[/QUOTE]
This is a very good point and certainly true. However it is also easy to overestimate the awareness of the crimes of the apartheidregime at the time. Especially among rock superstars who have never really lived in the "real" world.
But the UN embargo is a good point and I dont buy for one second that it wasnt the money that made them go there. Maybe they werent fully aware of what was going on and regretted it later, but they sure werent going on some sort of "peace-mission".
Thet were far from alone in playing sun city though.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]kingogre wrote: [/QUOTENAME]As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.[/QUOTE]
And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.
[/QUOTE]
By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.[/QUOTE]
This is a very good point and certainly true. However it is also easy to overestimate the awareness of the crimes of the apartheidregime at the time. Especially among rock superstars who have never really lived in the "real" world.
But the UN embargo is a good point and I dont buy for one second that it wasnt the money that made them go there. Maybe they werent fully aware of what was going on and regretted it later, but they sure werent going on some sort of "peace-mission".
Thet were far from alone in playing sun city though.[/QUOTE]
Good point about the isolation of rock stars: I wonder if Brian knows how much a loaf of bread is? :) Question for you: in 1986 (I think) I read in the british tabloid rag The Sun that there was a protest about this before a Queen concert in Sweden. The quote attributed to Brian in the paper was a bit of a shocker. He reportedly said of the protesters that they they (Queen) didn't give a stuff about SA and they did it for the money. I've always wondered about that i.e. was Brian misquoted (highly likely given The Sun is basically toilet paper with photos) or is this the 'real' brian may of that era (which would explain why they went to SA). Any idea if this is true or not?
And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.
[/QUOTE]
By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.[/QUOTE]
This is a very good point and certainly true. However it is also easy to overestimate the awareness of the crimes of the apartheidregime at the time. Especially among rock superstars who have never really lived in the "real" world.
But the UN embargo is a good point and I dont buy for one second that it wasnt the money that made them go there. Maybe they werent fully aware of what was going on and regretted it later, but they sure werent going on some sort of "peace-mission".
Thet were far from alone in playing sun city though.[/QUOTE]
Good point about the isolation of rock stars: I wonder if Brian knows how much a loaf of bread is? :) Question for you: in 1986 (I think) I read in the british tabloid rag The Sun that there was a protest about this before a Queen concert in Sweden. The quote attributed to Brian in the paper was a bit of a shocker. He reportedly said of the protesters that they they (Queen) didn't give a stuff about SA and they did it for the money. I've always wondered about that i.e. was Brian misquoted (highly likely given The Sun is basically toilet paper with photos) or is this the 'real' brian may of that era (which would explain why they went to SA). Any idea if this is true or not?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.[/QUOTE]
Because (of course), you can really get inside the heads of 4 people who screwed up 20 years ago. Yep - you've really got your finger on the Queen pulse, there!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_for_Kampuchea
^^^
Yeah.... they were such meanies!
By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.[/QUOTE]
Because (of course), you can really get inside the heads of 4 people who screwed up 20 years ago. Yep - you've really got your finger on the Queen pulse, there!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_for_Kampuchea
^^^
Yeah.... they were such meanies!