Printable View
As the Dixie Chicks become more international, and having cancelled some South and Midwest concerts in favor of Canadian cities, should they retain the name Dixie Chicks? They no longer represent the South, or Texas, or Dixieland, so should they be called Dixie Chicks anymore?
they should all be working at the waffle house. No talent pop country :furious3:
Dumbest thread ever. "You want to tour elsewhere, where people like you more? Let's RENAME you!"
Well they do claim to be dixie. Let's call 'em "America's First Liberal Traitor Chicks". They can do a special tour with George Soros and Cindy Sheehan.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
Alright. A tad harsh. But jeeze they started bashing Bush like the 1st Thursday of October after 9/11!
Bashing Bush = traitor?
:inquisitive: :inquisitive:
I conceded the harshness of my comment. Here. Have a chocolate.
from the post I was able to gather that this is some sort of pop group that doesn´t like bush.....
so who are these girls anyway?....
is their music worth:laugh4: anything?...and more important still...are they hot? :idea2:
Conceded and tried to justify itQuote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
I think that if the Dixie Chicks had limited themselves to bashing Bush and bashing the War on Terror, they wouldn't have received such a negative backlash. Heck, even Toby Keith, Mr. "Boot in your ass" has changed his tune and said he doesn't agree with the way the war is being run.
But Natalie Maines in particular, the Chicks in general, have made comments abroad disparaging America, Americans and the like. Yes, they have the right to disagree with the President. But they deny that same right to people that support him. According to Natlie, we're all a bunch of dumb hicks that don't know any better. Her right to express it, and Eclectic's right to say she outta change her national affiliation. I don't agree with him, but he certainly has the right to say it. Same free speech, no?
Did anybody deny him these rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
No. And you have the exact same right to question his questioning of them. What a warm, fuzzy place we have here. ~:grouphug:
I'm just trying to explain that there's two camps in the Anti-War crowd and why some of them find public tolerance and others don't. Bascially, a majority of Americans have no issue with flinging mud at the president or his administration. But if any splatters on them, your goose is cooked.
AFAIK the "Dixie Chicks" received quite some death threats for their criticism. That certainly goes far beyond exercizing the right of free speech (it also goes far beyond what Eclectic was saying, however, there seem to be quite some people who not only would call them "traitors" but who also have a very clear opinion about how such "traitors" should be "treated")
Hey, I hear you loud and clear, hermano ale'man (how do you do accent letters in org posts?).
Death threats, revokation of citizenship and expulsion, and all the rest of the so-called 'remedies' have no place in a free and just society. I'm not advocating any of that.
I don't really think they're traitors. They are certainly elitist little snub-snosed skanks who I would like to do my business with like a dog. Woof. I'd make 'em cry. mwa ha ha.
I really hope you on the anti-war left realize that, and granted, I've been indulging my rampant inner-cynic... criticizing the war is for the most part no more no less a marketing ploy then waving the flag all around. There are a few principled people on each side of the issue: Willie Nelson comes to mind. But the vast majority of entertainers that 'take a stand' do after careful consideration of whom their target audience is and how their stand will boost sales among them. The Dixie Chicks were right to slam Bush, as most people that listen to their music vote Democrat, and they darned well knew it. They're just selling their product...
EDIT by Ser Clegane: Not even a very witty attempt to break the forum rules
No not when they 1st said it and not now. Maybe they increased some but there core is still what it was 10 years agoQuote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
“The Dixie Chicks were right to slam Bush, as most people that listen to their music vote Democrat, and they darned well knew it. They're just selling their product...”. Funny you wrote that, because I just read an article stating the opposite… They were popular with Bush’s voters (natural electorate). But because comments against Bush they are now ostracise and have to go Canada for new fans. And according t the newspaper, they even change the style of their songs and music… I don’t know, never heard of them before…
They were trying to make a change into more mainstream, and had even started calling themselves folk music, as opposed to country music. They were having a hard time bridging that cultural gap though. Bashing the president and their fellow Americans made them fit right in though.
"Dixie Chicks=Quebec Chicks"
What, if you aint smalltown, conservative, Republican and even anti-intellectual you aint Dixie? And you had better pack your bags and move to liberal, French-speaking Canada?
Oh, why oh why did the conservatives ever manage to hijack an entire regional identity for a political agenda? The Republicans stealing the South is the greatest tragedy in recent American history. :wall:
Okay, so to the average fan, in order to be accepted as a country band you have to behave as if you've just walked out of a Dukes of Hazard episode. Fair enough. But to put a group under this much pressure for moving beyond the stereotype is ridiculous.
Nobody would've noticed an urban hip-hop artist making an anti-Bush stand. But if a Texan country group speaks out it is viewed in terms of betrayal. They're 'traitors'.
To which I say Gah! Liberalism and anti-Bushism are as Dixie, Texan and American as narrow-minded conservatism is. The Dixie Chicks betrayed neither country nor Country.
I see all this as a variant of that horrid slogan 'America, love it or leave it'. What that really says is: 'shut up and conform'. Which to me is the most un-patriotic, un-American statement you can make.
So go Dixie Chicks and God bless America.
"The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves, To me, they're terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American. The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about - namely freedom.
Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create free speech in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home. I don't know what happens next, but I do want to add my voice to those who think that the Dixie Chicks are getting a raw deal, and an un-American one to boot. I send them my support."
~ Bruce Springsteen
There's an easy way to explain all this Canadia>US easy lol
If they're taken off radio stations and networks, it's hardly un-American. Those stations feel their consumers don't want to hear them, and thus they have little choice in the matter. "Nothing personal, it's just business." And what's more American than cold capitalism? :smug:
I think the South turning was a somewhat natural progression. Even more interesting to me is the dramtic upturn of the conservative whiner. It wasn't too long ago when the left was the party that was the overrun with whiny angry people. The right has managed to increase their whininess 100x while being the party in power for the past 8 years. Quite an achievment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
They should be renamed by virtue of none of them being "chicks". Chicks require hotness, none of which any of them have.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
They are a bunch of hypocrites anyhow. They apologized for their Bush bashing, then a year later they pretend as if they never apologized for it.
As for the death threat thing: give me a break. That goes along with the territory of being a celebrity. Most of those threats were probably not the least bit credible.
CharmingQuote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
Being the subject of death threats definitely should not "go along with the territory of being a celebrity" - suggesting so displays a very distorted view on what is appropriate and legal behaviour.
Apart from that, even if "most" threats are not credible, some of them might be and the past has shown that there are enough sick minds who actually follow up on thier threats.
Never heard that. As far as I've heard the term and used it, all they require is a vagina and some mammaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros