There is an ongoing conversation in Mr. Bolos' blog "Born in The USA on Veterans Day". I wanted to continue this conversation through one of my own posts.
There are a considerable amount of songs that are criticisms of our government, or some aspect of our country, that have not limited by the government. But, there have also been some songs that were limited, such as many of Seeger's songs. I would argue that the government chooses to not limit some songs based on if they are still somewhat patriotic. Even though a song may be criticizing our country in some way, it can still be patriotic if evokes emotions of change for the better. For example, in "Born in the USA", Springsteen criticizes the Vietnam war for the purpose of saving American lives, and saving hardship for families. Therefore, there is a notion for change that would, in Springsteen's opinion, better our country. For that reason, this song can be considered patriotic, and was allowed to be publicized.
What is your opinion on this? What makes the government limit certain songs while allowing others to become widespread? Also, can a song criticizing our nation also be patriotic?
I think a song criticizing our nation can certainly be patriotic. Obviously Springsteen thought his song would make others reconsider the war, and as you said, better our country. The government limits songs that are a potential threat such as some of Seeger's work, but lets many innocuous songs become widespread even if they are a criticism on the government. A question to consider, in perilous or non-perilous times - How can one song affect the American public? and based on your answer to that: Should the government ever censor music?
ReplyDelete