[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][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![/QUOTE]
Since you have your finger on the 'Queen pulse' how much did the Kampuchea concert cost Queen and how much were they paid for the Sun City concerts?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[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]Is that the same UN of which the most important countries(China, US, Russia) do not accept jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court(in The Hague) because they fear their own military leaders will be convicted for violating human rights? Oh yes, it is. Quite some security council, heh!
I think it's fair to say Queen did not foresee the trouble they were getting themselves in. I truly beieve they had the naive idea that they were going to play for mixed audiences. It's a rare wrong decision from the band....Everyone makes mistakes. But saying they did it intentionally is just crazy.
I think the money argument is quite weak too. Queen were always excited to visit new places(for example also South-America)and this was also the case here.
And about the shows: a pity there aren't any recordings!
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]Is that the same UN of which the most important countries(China, US, Russia) do not accept jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court(in The Hague) because they fear their own military leaders will be convicted for violating human rights? Oh yes, it is. Quite some security council, heh!
I think it's fair to say Queen did not foresee the trouble they were getting themselves in. I truly beieve they had the naive idea that they were going to play for mixed audiences. It's a rare wrong decision from the band....Everyone makes mistakes. But saying they did it intentionally is just crazy.
I think the money argument is quite weak too. Queen were always excited to visit new places(for example also South-America)and this was also the case here.
And about the shows: a pity there aren't any recordings!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]on my way up 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]Is that the same UN of which the most important countries(China, US, Russia) do not accept jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court(in The Hague) because they fear their own military leaders will be convicted for violating human rights? Oh yes, it is. Quite some security council, heh!
I think it's fair to say Queen did not foresee the trouble they were getting themselves in. I truly beieve they had the naive idea that they were going to play for mixed audiences. It's a rare wrong decision from the band....Everyone makes mistakes. But saying they did it intentionally is just crazy.
I think the money argument is quite weak too. Queen were always excited to visit new places(for example also South-America)and this was also the case here.
And about the shows: a pity there aren't any recordings![/QUOTE]
That these countries refuse to be members of the Criminal Court in Hague says more about those countries than about the UN. The security council also had very little to do with the cultural embargo.
If you put it this way, Queen were always excited to find new markets to sell their music and concert-tickets in I think youre right. They were always a band with a big business-awareness.
Nothing wrong with this at all though.
My guess is that they got an offer from Sun City promoters, saw it only as yet another tour in a new market, like South America had been. They were aware of the controversy of it all but thought very little of it or underestimated what would follow.
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]Is that the same UN of which the most important countries(China, US, Russia) do not accept jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court(in The Hague) because they fear their own military leaders will be convicted for violating human rights? Oh yes, it is. Quite some security council, heh!
I think it's fair to say Queen did not foresee the trouble they were getting themselves in. I truly beieve they had the naive idea that they were going to play for mixed audiences. It's a rare wrong decision from the band....Everyone makes mistakes. But saying they did it intentionally is just crazy.
I think the money argument is quite weak too. Queen were always excited to visit new places(for example also South-America)and this was also the case here.
And about the shows: a pity there aren't any recordings![/QUOTE]
That these countries refuse to be members of the Criminal Court in Hague says more about those countries than about the UN. The security council also had very little to do with the cultural embargo.
If you put it this way, Queen were always excited to find new markets to sell their music and concert-tickets in I think youre right. They were always a band with a big business-awareness.
Nothing wrong with this at all though.
My guess is that they got an offer from Sun City promoters, saw it only as yet another tour in a new market, like South America had been. They were aware of the controversy of it all but thought very little of it or underestimated what would follow.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Since you have your finger on the 'Queen pulse' how much did the Kampuchea concert cost Queen and how much were they paid for the Sun City concerts?[/QUOTE]
A pittance on both counts!
No but seriously - they might have been naive in the extreme to play Sun City, but what position are you to extend that to a lack of moral fibre on the scale you're suggesting?
Can the bug in your bottom be so swollen?
Since you have your finger on the 'Queen pulse' how much did the Kampuchea concert cost Queen and how much were they paid for the Sun City concerts?[/QUOTE]
A pittance on both counts!
No but seriously - they might have been naive in the extreme to play Sun City, but what position are you to extend that to a lack of moral fibre on the scale you're suggesting?
Can the bug in your bottom be so swollen?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]was Brian misquoted (...) or is this the 'real' brian may of that era (...). Any idea if this is true or not? [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brian May wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We carefully considered all the pros and cons for a year before deciding we would be doing more to achieve the end of apartheid by going than by staying away. Sun City was the only place in South Africa then where a colour bar wasn't operating. The audiences were mixed, the hotel we stayed in was mixed. We were able to speak against apartheid in interviews and play with black musicians in Soweto.
(...)
We had turned down lucrative offers to play in Johannesburg and Cape Town[/QUOTE]
HTH
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brian May wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We carefully considered all the pros and cons for a year before deciding we would be doing more to achieve the end of apartheid by going than by staying away. Sun City was the only place in South Africa then where a colour bar wasn't operating. The audiences were mixed, the hotel we stayed in was mixed. We were able to speak against apartheid in interviews and play with black musicians in Soweto.
(...)
We had turned down lucrative offers to play in Johannesburg and Cape Town[/QUOTE]
HTH
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME
No but seriously - they might have been naive in the extreme to play Sun City, but what position are you to extend that to a lack of moral fibre on the scale you're suggesting?Can the bug in your bottom be so swollen?[/QUOTE]
I'm offering an opinion based on the facts as I see them. Of course there's speculation involved -- no one is going to come out and say "Fuck the South Africans, I don't give a shit, I'm only doing it for the money"* but the fact remains that Queen broke a UN embargo, knowing full well what they were doing, and the 'mixed audience' defence doesn't cut any ice with me now just as it didn't help Queen back then. My musings are an attempt to square Queen's allegedly liberal political stances (esp. RT & BM) with what they actually did. It's one thing to sing about 'One Vision' (and, of course, make a profit from the song)and quite another to go to S.Africa when they did.
*if I recall correctly, however, that's almost what Brian said in the comments attributed to him in The Sun (spit).
No but seriously - they might have been naive in the extreme to play Sun City, but what position are you to extend that to a lack of moral fibre on the scale you're suggesting?Can the bug in your bottom be so swollen?[/QUOTE]
I'm offering an opinion based on the facts as I see them. Of course there's speculation involved -- no one is going to come out and say "Fuck the South Africans, I don't give a shit, I'm only doing it for the money"* but the fact remains that Queen broke a UN embargo, knowing full well what they were doing, and the 'mixed audience' defence doesn't cut any ice with me now just as it didn't help Queen back then. My musings are an attempt to square Queen's allegedly liberal political stances (esp. RT & BM) with what they actually did. It's one thing to sing about 'One Vision' (and, of course, make a profit from the song)and quite another to go to S.Africa when they did.
*if I recall correctly, however, that's almost what Brian said in the comments attributed to him in The Sun (spit).
On my way up wrote:
"I think it's fair to say Queen did not foresee the trouble they were getting themselves in."
Ludicrous. They broke an international embargo by performing there. By doing so, they were basically saying "fuck you" to the world
"I truly beieve they had the naive idea that they were going to play for mixed audiences."
Entirely possible, even probable.
"It's a rare wrong decision from the band."
In that era. Virtually everything post-Freddie's death (5ive, Hollywood Recods fiasco, partnering with the Sun on WWRY, album artwork, multiple re-releases etc.) has been a poor, if not wrong decision.
"Everyone makes mistakes. But saying they did it intentionally is just crazy."
Queen have always been lauded as the most intelligent, or scholarly band in rock music. Brian gets indignant at people who kill things in their gardens with pesticides. Are you telling me that this same man had no moral conscience in 1985? He or his bandmates didn't know what a UN boycott was, or how wrong it was to play there? If it's crazy to say they did it (played Sun City) intentionally, how much crazier is it to say they played it unintentionally?
"I think the money argument is quite weak too."
Sure, especially with two of the four members (John and Freddie) quoted as talking about the money they would make by visiting there.
"Queen were always excited to visit new places(for example also South-America)and this was also the case here."
It was true that as Queen lost America, other places came calling and they got bigger around the world. However, there is nothing to justify their decision to play there. There's the story of the time when they played South America how Jim Beach had heard the stories of the O'Jays playing in Argentina, and having their equipment stolen or confiscated when they were loading up after the last show. Knowing this, beach laid down acres of astro turf, and it became a diversion as the army or whoever was so busy stealing it that thy were able to load up the valuable stuff and get the fuck out of Dodge. If Jim Beach was aware that promoters or the military was corrupt in Argentian, and he devised a brillaint plan to get out with all of his bosses assets, do you think he didn't know what Sun City was all about? That takes a huge leap in faith. Everyone does make mistakes, but these were intelligent, worldly men who made a poor decision based solely on the amount of money they could make. Doesn't put them on the level of Stalin or Pol Pot, but they're not exactly coming across like Mother Theresa here.
"I think it's fair to say Queen did not foresee the trouble they were getting themselves in."
Ludicrous. They broke an international embargo by performing there. By doing so, they were basically saying "fuck you" to the world
"I truly beieve they had the naive idea that they were going to play for mixed audiences."
Entirely possible, even probable.
"It's a rare wrong decision from the band."
In that era. Virtually everything post-Freddie's death (5ive, Hollywood Recods fiasco, partnering with the Sun on WWRY, album artwork, multiple re-releases etc.) has been a poor, if not wrong decision.
"Everyone makes mistakes. But saying they did it intentionally is just crazy."
Queen have always been lauded as the most intelligent, or scholarly band in rock music. Brian gets indignant at people who kill things in their gardens with pesticides. Are you telling me that this same man had no moral conscience in 1985? He or his bandmates didn't know what a UN boycott was, or how wrong it was to play there? If it's crazy to say they did it (played Sun City) intentionally, how much crazier is it to say they played it unintentionally?
"I think the money argument is quite weak too."
Sure, especially with two of the four members (John and Freddie) quoted as talking about the money they would make by visiting there.
"Queen were always excited to visit new places(for example also South-America)and this was also the case here."
It was true that as Queen lost America, other places came calling and they got bigger around the world. However, there is nothing to justify their decision to play there. There's the story of the time when they played South America how Jim Beach had heard the stories of the O'Jays playing in Argentina, and having their equipment stolen or confiscated when they were loading up after the last show. Knowing this, beach laid down acres of astro turf, and it became a diversion as the army or whoever was so busy stealing it that thy were able to load up the valuable stuff and get the fuck out of Dodge. If Jim Beach was aware that promoters or the military was corrupt in Argentian, and he devised a brillaint plan to get out with all of his bosses assets, do you think he didn't know what Sun City was all about? That takes a huge leap in faith. Everyone does make mistakes, but these were intelligent, worldly men who made a poor decision based solely on the amount of money they could make. Doesn't put them on the level of Stalin or Pol Pot, but they're not exactly coming across like Mother Theresa here.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:
In that era. Virtually everything post-Freddie's death (5ive, Hollywood Recods fiasco, partnering with the Sun on WWRY, album artwork, multiple re-releases etc.) has been a poor, if not wrong decision.
[/QUOTE]
I think the band were out on thin ice many times during this era. Freddie is certainly no saint in this matter and was responsible for many bad decisions. However the band also made many things right and always knew how to come back from their mistakes, and thats what made them world superstars.
Agree that what has been done in the Queen-name during the last decade mostly hasnt been good at all. I think all the compilations and "cabaret"-performances has damaged Queens reputation more than most people think. At least IMHO the Paul Rodgers collaboration is one of the few things that at least has the potential to be great.
In that era. Virtually everything post-Freddie's death (5ive, Hollywood Recods fiasco, partnering with the Sun on WWRY, album artwork, multiple re-releases etc.) has been a poor, if not wrong decision.
[/QUOTE]
I think the band were out on thin ice many times during this era. Freddie is certainly no saint in this matter and was responsible for many bad decisions. However the band also made many things right and always knew how to come back from their mistakes, and thats what made them world superstars.
Agree that what has been done in the Queen-name during the last decade mostly hasnt been good at all. I think all the compilations and "cabaret"-performances has damaged Queens reputation more than most people think. At least IMHO the Paul Rodgers collaboration is one of the few things that at least has the potential to be great.
Sheer Brass Neck: That would be my point about Jim Beach. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew the reality, but was economical with the truth to the band. Not to excuse them, but it wouldn't surprise me.
But the quote from Brian is the most telling, as it's obvious that they knew the situation and the difference in mainstream SA and Sun City. Their intention was to go there and do something to raise awaresness in one of the hearts of apartheid. And that is my point of view. Just because there's an international embargo, doesn't mean the embargo is right. I don't believe such things achieve what they are intended to. An embargo is intended (I believe) to stop a country such as SA receiving goods etc from the international community and in doing so force a change of regime in order that the country can break the embargo. BUT, IMO, all the embargo does is deprive the "innocent" population rather than the rich/influencial minority who would have been able to get around the embargo and get whatever they want. So you tell me, what does an embargo REALLY achieve?
Brian's point is that by playing in an area where they can mix with black africans and speak against apartheid that they do more to work against the system than for it. And to a certain degree I agree with him.
Now, the argument would hold a lot more weight if Queen had taken the money and given it to some causes, but could they be sure that it would end up where it should have done? Or at least SOME of the money (maybe they did?).
Brian did petition that the fine they incurred should be used for african causes, but the organistion that fined them put it in their own coffers (and again, who knows how that would have been used - would it have been used to aid africans?)
So that's my stance. They might well have been a little naive, a little mis-informed, but I think at the time they thought it was worth doing (monetarily of course, but also to make an impact, which they did, although not in the way they did).
And just because the USA decided that South American states were ok because they weren't communist, and these weren't subject to an embargo, is it any morally different? Remember this same government is now waging a war against the very people it supported in the 80s against Russia. And if that's a barometer of what's right and wrong, I ask again: why weren't Wham slated for making it Big In China, and why weren't Queen slammed for playing communist Hungary? It's hypocrisy really, isn't it?
So what's the worth of an embargo or the affirmation of a facist dictatorship?
Was the embargo responsible for the political decision to release Mandela and hold open elections? I don't know - maybe, but I doubt it.
Can someone pinpoint the reasons for the end of apartheid? I think it was more to do with the internal changes/forces rather than external forces wasn't it? I'm not up on SA modern history - can anyone enlighten me? (Might be going way off topic, but I'm interested in if the embargo achieved anything).
But the quote from Brian is the most telling, as it's obvious that they knew the situation and the difference in mainstream SA and Sun City. Their intention was to go there and do something to raise awaresness in one of the hearts of apartheid. And that is my point of view. Just because there's an international embargo, doesn't mean the embargo is right. I don't believe such things achieve what they are intended to. An embargo is intended (I believe) to stop a country such as SA receiving goods etc from the international community and in doing so force a change of regime in order that the country can break the embargo. BUT, IMO, all the embargo does is deprive the "innocent" population rather than the rich/influencial minority who would have been able to get around the embargo and get whatever they want. So you tell me, what does an embargo REALLY achieve?
Brian's point is that by playing in an area where they can mix with black africans and speak against apartheid that they do more to work against the system than for it. And to a certain degree I agree with him.
Now, the argument would hold a lot more weight if Queen had taken the money and given it to some causes, but could they be sure that it would end up where it should have done? Or at least SOME of the money (maybe they did?).
Brian did petition that the fine they incurred should be used for african causes, but the organistion that fined them put it in their own coffers (and again, who knows how that would have been used - would it have been used to aid africans?)
So that's my stance. They might well have been a little naive, a little mis-informed, but I think at the time they thought it was worth doing (monetarily of course, but also to make an impact, which they did, although not in the way they did).
And just because the USA decided that South American states were ok because they weren't communist, and these weren't subject to an embargo, is it any morally different? Remember this same government is now waging a war against the very people it supported in the 80s against Russia. And if that's a barometer of what's right and wrong, I ask again: why weren't Wham slated for making it Big In China, and why weren't Queen slammed for playing communist Hungary? It's hypocrisy really, isn't it?
So what's the worth of an embargo or the affirmation of a facist dictatorship?
Was the embargo responsible for the political decision to release Mandela and hold open elections? I don't know - maybe, but I doubt it.
Can someone pinpoint the reasons for the end of apartheid? I think it was more to do with the internal changes/forces rather than external forces wasn't it? I'm not up on SA modern history - can anyone enlighten me? (Might be going way off topic, but I'm interested in if the embargo achieved anything).
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Oberon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Just because there's an international embargo, doesn't mean the embargo is right. I don't believe such things achieve what they are intended to. An embargo is intended (I believe) to stop a country such as SA receiving goods etc from the international community and in doing so force a change of regime in order that the country can break the embargo. BUT, IMO, all the embargo does is deprive the "innocent" population rather than the rich/influencial minority who would have been able to get around the embargo and get whatever they want. So you tell me, what does an embargo REALLY achieve?
Can someone pinpoint the reasons for the end of apartheid? I think it was more to do with the internal changes/forces rather than external forces wasn't it? I'm not up on SA modern history - can anyone enlighten me? (Might be going way off topic, but I'm interested in if the embargo achieved anything).[/QUOTE]
The point of any embargo is to make the ordinary people turn against the government by denying them the "luxuries" of life... By telling them they would be better off with different policies.
That IS the internal change that ended the apartheid. Enough people realised they were better off without it, and the government was forced to change its policies.
Embargos will work against democratic countries where the ordinary people really have a say in the decisionmaking They will not work against ruthless dictatorships unless they are set tight enough to affect the leader(s) as well.
Can someone pinpoint the reasons for the end of apartheid? I think it was more to do with the internal changes/forces rather than external forces wasn't it? I'm not up on SA modern history - can anyone enlighten me? (Might be going way off topic, but I'm interested in if the embargo achieved anything).[/QUOTE]
The point of any embargo is to make the ordinary people turn against the government by denying them the "luxuries" of life... By telling them they would be better off with different policies.
That IS the internal change that ended the apartheid. Enough people realised they were better off without it, and the government was forced to change its policies.
Embargos will work against democratic countries where the ordinary people really have a say in the decisionmaking They will not work against ruthless dictatorships unless they are set tight enough to affect the leader(s) as well.
Oberon, I agree that a cultural boycott is questionable. I am not sure if artists and athletes should be forced into such a boycott but that is not the point. The point is that Queen were well aware of the situation and they ignored the UN decision as well as Union policy with a great deal of arrogance. There was a lot of controvery *before* they actually went and you had to live under a rock in the 80s to not know about Sun City.
Re Brian's comments as quoted by gnomo - to say that Sun City had no racial barriers is just plain wrong and to say that Queen could achieve something to end apartheid by playing in Sun City is ridiculous and offending Brian May's own intelligence. If I remember well he even said that if they had to agree with all governments in the countries they played in, there would not be left many including England. Which apparently meant that there is not much of a difference between a democracy with normal social problems and occasional human rights issues and an outrageous terror regime like South Africa.
Yes, Brian went to Soweto and he played with some black musicians in a small venue with no TV around of course and no publicity in South Africa (Queen did NOT play a concert in Soweto) and yes, they did release a charity LP in South Africa but that was only a weak attempt to make the band look better.
Re Brian's comments as quoted by gnomo - to say that Sun City had no racial barriers is just plain wrong and to say that Queen could achieve something to end apartheid by playing in Sun City is ridiculous and offending Brian May's own intelligence. If I remember well he even said that if they had to agree with all governments in the countries they played in, there would not be left many including England. Which apparently meant that there is not much of a difference between a democracy with normal social problems and occasional human rights issues and an outrageous terror regime like South Africa.
Yes, Brian went to Soweto and he played with some black musicians in a small venue with no TV around of course and no publicity in South Africa (Queen did NOT play a concert in Soweto) and yes, they did release a charity LP in South Africa but that was only a weak attempt to make the band look better.
So by definition an embargo punishes the very people it is intended to help? Sounds balmy to me! And SA wasn't a democracy was it? Blacks didn't have a vote, other than in their homelands, but what did that matter?
Still not convinced. Surely any population will strive to overturn such regimes if there are enough persecuted majority? Why does an embargo help that?
It was the government that ended up having to release Mandela and enter into negotiations to hold open elections, but did the embargo do that, or the untenable internal structure and unrest? Did the embargo really influence these internal changes? Surely it would have come about even if bands were free to tour and sell their records etc in SA?
Still not convinced. Surely any population will strive to overturn such regimes if there are enough persecuted majority? Why does an embargo help that?
It was the government that ended up having to release Mandela and enter into negotiations to hold open elections, but did the embargo do that, or the untenable internal structure and unrest? Did the embargo really influence these internal changes? Surely it would have come about even if bands were free to tour and sell their records etc in SA?
Your Valentine
I guess my point is that if I were Queen I wouldn't have felt I should observe some Union rule or UN resolution.
And, yes, them playing there isn't going to bring aparheid to it's knees, but they felt that it was better to do something real to reach out to SA rather than sit at home etc. Like I said, naive about the lack of real mixed audience, but I believe the sentiment was genuine.
And I think the point about there being few countries that aren't politically questionable to some degree adds more weight to my argument (and Brian's obviously).
As Mandela himself said (just been on Wikipedia, so a bit dodgy on this perhaps), that the USA has caused more large scale attrocities really than many (the a-bomb on Japan, supporting white SA, Vietnam, Iraq), yet no-one questions touring the USA.
Politics is politcs, and none are completely clean. And I think this is why I can't agree that Queen were completely in the wrong to play Sun City. If I accept that then I have to say they were wrong to play S America and Hungary etc. And that would be just ridiculous, don't you think?
I guess my point is that if I were Queen I wouldn't have felt I should observe some Union rule or UN resolution.
And, yes, them playing there isn't going to bring aparheid to it's knees, but they felt that it was better to do something real to reach out to SA rather than sit at home etc. Like I said, naive about the lack of real mixed audience, but I believe the sentiment was genuine.
And I think the point about there being few countries that aren't politically questionable to some degree adds more weight to my argument (and Brian's obviously).
As Mandela himself said (just been on Wikipedia, so a bit dodgy on this perhaps), that the USA has caused more large scale attrocities really than many (the a-bomb on Japan, supporting white SA, Vietnam, Iraq), yet no-one questions touring the USA.
Politics is politcs, and none are completely clean. And I think this is why I can't agree that Queen were completely in the wrong to play Sun City. If I accept that then I have to say they were wrong to play S America and Hungary etc. And that would be just ridiculous, don't you think?
Can I just say, that THIS is what I want this forum for - a good old "proper" debate, without any mud slinging. Just some reasoned, mature discussion. Bring it on and long may this continue...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Oberon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So by definition an embargo punishes the very people it is intended to help? Sounds balmy to me! And SA wasn't a democracy was it? Blacks didn't have a vote, other than in their homelands, but what did that matter?
Still not convinced. Surely any population will strive to overturn such regimes if there are enough persecuted majority? Why does an embargo help that?
It was the government that ended up having to release Mandela and enter into negotiations to hold open elections, but did the embargo do that, or the untenable internal structure and unrest? Did the embargo really influence these internal changes? Surely it would have come about even if bands were free to tour and sell their records etc in SA?[/QUOTE]
No, the embargo didn't punish the oppressed black people. That was already done by the government.
It did however punish the white people among whom there was a democracy. They were the people in power, and they were reaping the benefits of oppressing the blacks.
Perhaps an analogy would make this clearer to you?
Let's say that Spain is charge of the EU and oppresses all the other Europeans to the point where they have no money or control over their own lives. They will lose nothing from an embargo against the EU, but the Spanish people will. The less happier the Spanish people get, the more likely it is they will vote for a new government. The existing government might even change its mind all by itself it realises the Spanish people are suffering because of their choices.
Just how significant the impact of a cultural embargo was is subject to debate, but it sure as hell didn't make the white minority happier about their government's choices!
Still not convinced. Surely any population will strive to overturn such regimes if there are enough persecuted majority? Why does an embargo help that?
It was the government that ended up having to release Mandela and enter into negotiations to hold open elections, but did the embargo do that, or the untenable internal structure and unrest? Did the embargo really influence these internal changes? Surely it would have come about even if bands were free to tour and sell their records etc in SA?[/QUOTE]
No, the embargo didn't punish the oppressed black people. That was already done by the government.
It did however punish the white people among whom there was a democracy. They were the people in power, and they were reaping the benefits of oppressing the blacks.
Perhaps an analogy would make this clearer to you?
Let's say that Spain is charge of the EU and oppresses all the other Europeans to the point where they have no money or control over their own lives. They will lose nothing from an embargo against the EU, but the Spanish people will. The less happier the Spanish people get, the more likely it is they will vote for a new government. The existing government might even change its mind all by itself it realises the Spanish people are suffering because of their choices.
Just how significant the impact of a cultural embargo was is subject to debate, but it sure as hell didn't make the white minority happier about their government's choices!