A fine howdy and top of the morning from Paradise!
Reading through the Tilbury/Andel review and discussion, a certain opinion registered with my own: that there's plenty of room within this site to give the tangents their own home. Tilbury's politics have been brought up enough around here, which leaves me wondering why his politics don't have their own .php. And a perfectly fine review now has attached to it yet another exchange that has become personal! I like the dynamic review/article format, in that the dialogue that follows the writeup becomes part of the record, but perhaps no more 'valid' than a page from Wikipedia. That's the way it goes here, as it has forever.
I task the other writers here to recognize the storms when they collect, and to create a new sub-discussion on the topic, right here on the main page. If they die a quick death, then so be it. Pixels are cheap around here, so use the space we have, attempt to free the reviews and articles of clutter, and organize the exchanges. (Just don't overdo it, Parker.)
I'll begin:
Michael faults Tilbury as a slinger of "pseudo-intellectualism". Fair enough, though I didn't read anywhere how or why certain parts of his stance are flawed. If I may prime, Tilbury says:
1) "My contention is that by submitting oneself to the formal procedure of entering the US, by presenting oneself and one's passport to American custom officials for acceptance and approval (and now to be finger-printed: 21.1.04), one is conferring a status of legitimacy, of normality, on a situation which is abnormal."
Any Americans here feel as strongly with respect to their residency?
2) In his '22 Questions', Tilbury considers the anonymity of the thousands of deaths that occur daily as a result of poverty, which is of course a byproduct of the fattening of rich corporate pockets. I'm to assume that there is a crime of hypocrisy here: (1) thousands died anonymously as a result of government and (2) the ~3,000 who died in the WTC (who, naturally, were noble players in the pocket fattening process) were identified and their names were publicized, treated as all heros should be.
Michael, go nuts.
Posted by al on October 29, 2005 1:13 PMFirst I should point out that I disagree with the assumptions behind any kind of "boycott politics". Only collective action on the economic, political and social structures that allow for US/UK foreign policy will cause any kind of sustained change - boycotts simply reinforce the totality of consumer society. However withdrawing your labour a boycott is a strike, much more sensible.
I have a suspicion that Alastair's comments regarding being asked about your potential membership of the Nazi party, abduction of children, involvement in genocide, drug trafficking and whatever else is on those immigration forms may have a lot to do with Tilbury's decision not to go through US customs. It certainly makes the first couple of hours a very unpleasant and distasteful experience, although I've never been foolhardy enough to tick 'yes' on that form to see what happens.
Now to deal with some of Michael Anton Parker's comments on the review thread, he'll be needing his Black Sabbath:
"Tilbury was talking about a hypothetical situation of Americans incarcerated for objecting to current foreign policy. This situation doesn't exist in the current non-hypothetical world."
First of all you mis-quote, whether intentionally or not. Tilbury's statements says this:
"If I could be persuaded that the positive consequences of my spending time, in whatever capacity, in the US would out-weigh the negative consequences, I would go. If, for example, I could make music for those brave Americans incarcerated for opposing the madness of their rulers, I would go."
There are certainly many people incarcerated in the US with strong objections to American Foreign Policy. A quick google search reveals a number of websites doing support for political prisoners in the US. Maybe MAP simply doesn't have any interest in radical politics and the US prison system and assumes that because he doesn't see it in the NYT, it doesn't exist. The hypothetical is in the financial resources necessary for such a concert to take place, which are very much not in the hands of those with any kind of fundamental opposition to the US government.
This should also be put in context of Tilbury's concern that if he played in the US, he'd be playing for a "privileged...liberal...elite". A small subsection of society which benefits very much from those economic, political and social structures that need to be fundamentally altered if America's role as the primary military force in the defense of international capital is to be affected. His avowed respect for American political activists and this statement ought to have dissuaded the "unwrinkled" from his binary assumptions. The quarrel is not with Americans, but with the political and cultural establishment in the US.
I disagree with Tilbury's assessment of the general audience - certainly improvised music attracts professionals and those of high social status, but it's also a cultural activity that takes place in some of the more marginalised areas of artistic production and is both produced and consumed by some very non-privileged people, (especially in the UK and Japan - Proletarian Meeting anyone?). Having said that, the likely venues that a John Tilbury concert in the US might take place in are likely to cater to the former rather than the latter.
MAP again:
"I phrased my point about insults with respect to a very specific group of people with a certain deep relationship to Tilbury (the people who make it possible for him to be an artist)."
"Fans" don't make it possible for someone to be an artist (Van Gogh), they make it possible for someone to survive financially through artistic production. Those are by no means the same thing. The certain relationship you describe, but fail to put into words, is an economic relationship. The exchange of money for commodities - whether for CDs, performances or in the case of promoters, labour-power.
Tilbury, since he doesn't own capital, is compelled to sell his labour on the market in order to survive, like most of us. If he doesn't, he'll live in poverty or die, like most of us. He's stated somewhere that if it was possible, he would have extended his non-performance to the UK, but to do that he'd have to cut out pretty much his only source of income. If you want to attack this for inconsistency, go ahead, but I'm not interested in people becoming martyrs.
As someone who's opposed to commodity production and capital accumulation, the idea that "customers are responsible for the workers' ability to work" is a ridiculous as the idea that an "employer is responsible for the workers ability to work". The worker reproduces both capital and their own labour power. It's only the mediation of the money form which allows you to make the assertion that passive consumers are the well spring from which the possibility of production springs forth.
For there to be any kind of rational society, the relationships between employer, producer and consumer need to be transformed to a situation where production is carried out under the principle "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need". Workers beginning to take some control over how their labour power is used (even symbolically) is a part of that. I may disagree with avoiding any particular state (all of them are bad, although my estimation of the US government has sunk below my lowest expectations after Katrina), but MAP's arguments against Tilbury's decision are facile at best.
Posted by: Nathaniel Catchpole at October 29, 2005 7:13 PMAn excellent and well-argued overview, Nat. Thank you for taking the time to do the job thoroughly.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at October 30, 2005 12:29 AMFor there to be any kind of rational society, the relationships between employer, producer and consumer need to be transformed to a situation where production is carried out under the principle "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need".
If you'll forgive me, Nat, I think the world has seen all it needs of attempts at that sort of "rationality." I don't suggest by this, however, that Tilbury's stance is therefore inappropriate by my lights. I make it quixotic at worst...and, perhaps, at best.
Posted by: walto at October 30, 2005 6:03 AMCapitalism as a system has only existed for a short time in human history, and is responsible for many more deaths than the genuinely revolutionary elements of any society in history. As Tilbury's death toll alludes to.
It was liberal democracies that set up the first concentration camps during the Boer war, firebombed civilians in Dresden and Tokyo, gassed the Kurds in 1919-20, dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Shock and Awe in Iraq, funded the contras in Nicaragua, dropped agent orange in Vietnam, instituted a shoot to kill policy to prevent people acquiring food from abandoned shops in New Orleans... I think we've seen enough of that as well.
Stalinism modified the communist principle into "from each according to their ability; to each according to their work", it doesn't count as an attempt in my book, neither does Mao's bourgeios nationalism. Both regimes ended up preserving capital relationships against very real challenges to them, and had to do so very bloodily - Kronstadt for example.
There were democratic and egalitarian elements of most major revolutions (German peasant revolts, English Levellers, French sans-culottes/enragés, town meetings in the American, the soviets, factory committeesm, and workers' opposition in russia between 1917 and 1921, the Spartacists in Germany, the CNT in spain, workers councils in Hungary '56 (against one of your alluded 'attempts')) which were crushed by counter-revolution in all cases, either by the original ruling class or by new ones which came to replace them. Much of the violence during these revolutions was the annihilation of the genuine working class revolutionary movements by counter-revolutionaries of whatever stripe.
Posted by: Nat at October 30, 2005 6:32 AMNat: "Fans" don't make it possible for someone to be an artist (Van Gogh), they make it possible for someone to survive financially through artistic production. Those are by no means the same thing. The certain relationship you describe, but fail to put into words, is an economic relationship. The exchange of money for commodities - whether for CDs, performances or in the case of promoters, labour-power. "
I think this is an important point worth remembering. It also gets to the issue, that's run through a few threads, of the boosterism that appears in all music mags and blogs. Perhaps the fans who write all these mostly positive reviews and certainly the ones who gush into worship, want to feel responsible for an artist's work, or least an artist's recognition. They've invested their time (and sometimes money) into promoting and they want a 'return.'
But I believe, as others have said, that all this 'love,' which is not untainted by the praiser's ego, leads to too much being released, too many mediocre efforts. And it really is an instance where the fans can actually affect the art, and in my opinion, it is a very bad effect. Makes one respect Miles Davis' famous contempt for his fans.
Posted by: Adam Hill at October 30, 2005 7:46 AMCapitalism as a system has only existed for a short time in human history, and is responsible for many more deaths than the genuinely revolutionary elements of any society in history. As Tilbury's death toll alludes to.
It was liberal democracies that set up the first concentration camps during the Boer war, firebombed civilians in Dresden and Tokyo, gassed the Kurds in 1919-20, dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Shock and Awe in Iraq, funded the contras in Nicaragua, dropped agent orange in Vietnam, instituted a shoot to kill policy to prevent people acquiring food from abandoned shops in New Orleans... I think we've seen enough of that as well.
I don't disagree with much of that, but I don't think this "from each...to each" song provides much guarantee of better treatment of human beings than we've seen under Smith-style capitalism. The socialist experiments you've mentioned, even granting their doctrinal "mistakes," don't give me much comfort or hope. To my ears, Stalin and Mao sang tunes much like Marx's (and yours)--even if they sang off-key.
As you know, I'd prefer a different sort of capitalist experiment--one tried nowhere but Andorra (AFAIK). No death camps (or Gulags) there that I know of.
The major problem may well be that no political system works on a community numbering more than a few dozen. Once you've got a "state" going, the threat, implication, or employment of violence, whether directed inward or outward, is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Human beings are fucked up like that. If the prevention of violence, and/or the promotion of general welfare, is the goal, no social structure yet devised works on a large scale. The best solution is to give up on the mass of humanity, and find a small crack through which you can slip, rodent-like, and grab whatever's grabbable without drawing (negative) attention to yourself.
Posted by: Phil at October 30, 2005 12:13 PM[MAP] I phrased my point about insults with respect to a very specific group of people with a certain deep relationship to Tilbury (the people who make it possible for him to be an artist)."
[Nat] "Fans" don't make it possible for someone to be an artist (Van Gogh), they make it possible for someone to survive financially through artistic production. Those are by no means the same thing. The certain relationship you describe, but fail to put into words, is an economic relationship.
[MAP] Actually, it was not at all an economic relationship I was referring to, but rather the relationship of shared aesthetic dispositions. I believe that Tilbury (and perhaps anyone) would not be an artist without a community structure in which communication and aesthetic negotiation took place.
I don't believe Adam's remarks are relevant to what I meant either. The type of socio-aesthetic community structure I'm referring to is much more abstract than economics or fanhood.
----------------
[MAP] Tilbury was talking about a hypothetical situation of Americans incarcerated for objecting to current foreign policy. This situation doesn't exist in the current non-hypothetical world.
[Nat] First of all you mis-quote, whether intentionally or not. Tilbury's statements says this:
[Tilbury] If I could be persuaded that the positive consequences of my spending time, in whatever capacity, in the US would out-weigh the negative consequences, I would go. If, for example, I could make music for those brave Americans incarcerated for opposing the madness of their rulers, I would go.
[Nat] There are certainly many people incarcerated in the US with strong objections to American Foreign Policy. A quick google search reveals a number of websites doing support for political prisoners in the US.
[MAP] I'm quite surprised to hear of these political prisoners you mention. It's hard to imagine that someone would be imprisoned solely on the basis of objecting to American foreign policy. I suspect there would be other reasons for their imprisonment. I would love to see a concrete example. I don't see any reason not to take Tilbury's remark as hypothetical.
By the way, it's slightly hilarious to imagine that an random group of political prisoners would give a flying hootenanny about Tilbury's music! They'd probably benefit much more from an iPod.
--------------------
[MAP] In any case, I appreciate these remarks about governmental ideology and so on that Nat and Walt are making. It's interesting to read, but I must admit I don't really understand much of it. One thing I am fairly certain about, though, is that none of it is relevant at all to Tilbury's boycott. As I had mentioned earlier, it's a smokescreen for irrational prejudices and offensive behavior towards fellow members of his socio-aesthetic community. All the writing in circles about governmental, social, and economic politics that Tilbury or Nat or anyone may offer is simply sidestepping the issue and creating a cloud of vague theory.
If all this theoretical wanking was put in concrete layman's terms for someone like me to understand, I have a feeling I'd wind up agreeing with Tilbury and Nat about most of it. As it is, I have totally different beliefs about what kind of activities might lead to positive transformations in the human condition; suffice to say that pie-in-the-sky coffee-shop-philosophizing is not on my list.
[MAP] Actually, it was not at all an economic relationship I was referring to, but rather the relationship of shared aesthetic dispositions. I believe that Tilbury (and perhaps anyone) would not be an artist without a community structure in which communication and aesthetic negotiation took place.
I don't believe Adam's remarks are relevant to what I meant either. The type of socio-aesthetic community structure I'm referring to is much more abstract than economics or fanhood."
Sincerely, what does this mean? Your two comments above seem at odds with each other. Is it a real community or an abstract one? And what is an abstract community, and how does it communcate?
Michael, you're being asinine. Countless people have been incarcerated for objecting to US Foreign Policy. I myself was incarcerated twice last year, once for 18 hours and once for 2 weeks. Granted we are talking about objecting in physical situations (read: civil disobedience, there's quite a long history of it in this country) not just "coffee-shop-philosophizing". And I would have loved for anyone to have visited me in prison. I hadn't heard of Tilbury then, but I'm sure I would have been extremely grateful if he had shown up, even if it was only with a toy piano. As for irrational prejudices and offensive behavior, assuming you consider this forum part of your "absract" socio-aesthetic community, I suggest you pause and reflect on how much you may have been guilty of the accusations you're leveling at Tilbury and, by unreasonable implication, Nat and Walto.
Posted by: Ryan Gregory at October 30, 2005 1:37 PMMichael, you're being asinine. Countless people have been incarcerated for objecting to US Foreign Policy. I myself was incarcerated twice last year, once for 18 hours and once for 2 weeks. Granted we are talking about objecting in physical situations (read: civil disobedience, there's quite a long history of it in this country) not just "coffee-shop-philosophizing". And I would have loved for anyone to have visited me in prison. I hadn't heard of Tilbury then, but I'm sure I would have been extremely grateful if he had shown up, even if it was only with a toy piano. As for irrational prejudices and offensive behavior, assuming you consider this forum part of your "absract" socio-aesthetic community, I suggest you pause and reflect on how much you may have been guilty of the accusations you're leveling at Tilbury and, by unreasonable implication, Nat and Walto.
Posted by: Ryan Gregory at October 30, 2005 1:37 PMRyan, I don't think I'm being asisine; ignorant perhaps, but without pretending otherwise. Can you explain the connection between your objections to US foreign policy and your incarceration? This is fascinating, deeply relevant, and quite a mystery to me. It's an uncannily ideal concrete example to ground the discussion.
As far as offending Tilbury, I already covered that; if all Tilbury did was babble on an internet forum (as I've done) I don't think any of us would be bothered in the least. Further, people actually care about his opinions and actions; he's a pivotal and revered figure in the community, whereas I'm just an anonymous random person who's contributed virtually nothing to the community and whose opinion is probably only minimally valued by others. There's no comparison. Tilbury is a towering genius and influence on contemporary music. His opinions and actions really count for a lot; mine count for very little.
Walt:
Andorra just looks like a tax haven for wealthy Europeans to me.
As to singing the same song out of tune, Pinochet?
MAP: Actually, it was not at all an economic relationship I was referring to, but rather the relationship of shared aesthetic dispositions. I believe that Tilbury (and perhaps anyone) would not be an artist without a community structure in which communication and aesthetic negotiation took place."
Oh I think you very much were discussing an economic relationship, Tilbury hasn't stopped his CDs from being purchased in the US, nor people writing reviews in the US, so communication and aesthetic negotiation may continue. You're backtracking and obfuscating your point because it's been shown to be false.
MAP: I'm quite surprised to hear of these political prisoners you mention. It's hard to imagine that someone would be imprisoned solely on the basis of objecting to American foreign policy."
I played at Tonic on the night of the Republican National Convention. Jon Abbey will confirm that at least one person present had just got out of jail after being arrested at a protest. And it's someone you'll be personally familiar with, at least musically. I think it's also very likely that the same person is very familiar with Tilbury's music.
MAP:smoke screen-theoretical wanking-coffee shop philosophising
So Tilbury's politics has nothing to with his interpretation of US foreign policy, or his decisions on how to react to it?
MAP: I must admit I don't really understand much of it. One thing I am fairly certain about, though, is that none of it is relevant at all to Tilbury's boycott...was put in concrete layman's terms for someone like me to understand
So you don't understand what we're talking about. Well I usually try not to patronise people, something you seem quite happy to do yourself. I don't use flowery academic language, although I do try to use words in the context of their proper definition. (if you need some help, try looking up the historical events I referenced, hardly "coffee shop pie in the sky" - the CNT-FAI in the Spanish Civil War for example, or Hungary '56.)
MAP: I'm quite surprised to hear of these political prisoners you mention. It's hard to imagine that someone would be imprisoned solely on the basis of objecting to American foreign policy.
Again, that's twisting Tilbury's statement "incarcerated for opposing the madness of their rulers" - it doesn't say "objecting privately", or even "objecting on paper", it says opposing. Anyway, hopefully Ryan will return to the thread and school you on that.
Posted by: Nat at October 31, 2005 3:31 AM"Andorra just looks like a tax haven for wealthy Europeans to me."
Though that wasn't its purpose, I'm not surprised if that's all it is. It's too little to be an actual country. Kind of like having a Peoples Republic of Burlington.
Posted by: walto at October 31, 2005 4:34 AMNot to get involved with the larger discussion but just to bring it back to Tilbury and his specific decision not to come to the US.
Whatever disagreements I may have with someone's political stance, if that person finds a given situation to be immoral and chooses not, to a greater or lesser extent, participate in it, I can't see how it's at all possible to object. Tilbury believes that going through customs and such, ie, engaging in US governmental procedures is giving implicit sanction to that government's activities and he'd rather not do it. End of story, as far as I'm concerned. He's withdrawing an action not inciting one (ie, not choosing to shoot a customs official to make his point) which is entirely his prerogative and, more, something I'd expect him to do as a moral being (again, whether or not I agree with his reasoning).
[If I find out that the deli owner down the street beats his wife, I'll choose not to patronize his shop, regardless of how much I enjoy his services otherwise. I may be the only person in the neighborhood who feels that way. Tough.]
It's not a matter of being "quixotic" or not or, necessarily, of effecting major political change. It's simply being true to one's convictions. I could imagine this position being criticized from those of a collectivist point of view as excessively "individualistic" but, of course, as an unreconstructed individualist, this bothers me not a bit.
Posted by: Brian Olewnick at October 31, 2005 5:38 AM[MAP] Actually, it was not at all an economic relationship I was referring to, but rather the relationship of shared aesthetic dispositions. I believe that Tilbury (and perhaps anyone) would not be an artist without a community structure in which communication and aesthetic negotiation took place.
[Nat] Oh I think you very much were discussing an economic relationship, Tilbury hasn't stopped his CDs from being purchased in the US, nor people writing reviews in the US, so communication and aesthetic negotiation may continue. You're backtracking and obfuscating your point because it's been shown to be false.
[MAP] Geez, Nat, with this remark of yours our exchange is devolving into unseemly bickering. It's frankly absurd for you to have such a conviction about my intended meaning after I've explicitly clarified it! To wit (redux), I was not discussing an economic relationship. Do you believe me this time?
By clarifying the nature of relationship I was talking about, I believe I was, uh, clarifying my point, certainly not obfuscating it. I'm not aware that my point about community structure and human relationships (the entire crux of the issue with Tilbury in my view, and having nothing at all to do with governmental ideology) has been shown false in the slightest bit. So far only you and Adam have responded to it: you've arrogantly misconstrued it and Adam has politely requested further clarification of it (I do hope to offer this for the sake of being a good sport and not opening a can of worms without going on to make a good meal out of them). Neither constitutes a counterargument.
Your point about CDs being purchased and reviews being written is simply irrelevant for several reasons. First, I never claimed that Tilbury's lack of live performance in the US completely obstructed communication and aesthetic negotiation, though I suppose it did prevent a slice of it. What I did in fact claim was clearly stated above and available for proper reading, so I won't repeat it here. Second, these mundane (and mostly economic) activities (CD-buying and review-writing) are not representative of the communication and aesthetic negotiation I was referring to, though I suppose they are minor and superficial aspects of it nonetheless.
Posted by: Michael Anton Parker at October 31, 2005 6:15 AMBrian, I think you put Tilbury's case very well.
As we've discussed before (on several occasions, I believe), I think my view of these sorts of "boycotts" as quixotic probably stems from my following Shaw in thinking that it's pretty hard to keep one's hands perfectly clean in our dusty world. You wouldn't shop at that deli--but would you sell the shithead an anti-pollution device? Is it better for Major Barbara to turn down the large contribution from the distiller or use the money to help the homeless?
Hat's off to Tilbury...
Tilbury's not the only one who boycotted the US after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. A number of academics and scientists have been staying out too. Exchange students are rerouting their plans through New Zealand and Australia. (Yes, I know what the idiots are going to say--Australia, like Britain, supported the war in Iraq. But to that I say one thing--If the US had refused to invade, would the compliant regimes in the other places gone ahead anyway? Let's get real about geopolitical realities here). Let's have a bit of history too...
From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan
a century of US military interventions
Compiled by Zoltan Grossman
(revised October 8, 2001)
U.S. military spending ($343 billion in the year 2000) is 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined. Russia, which has the second largest military budget, spends less than one-sixth what the United States does. Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spend $14.4 billion combined; Iran accounts for 52 percent of this total.
The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2000. This guide does NOT include demonstration duty by military police, mobilizations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities.
Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), and Daniel Ellsberg in Protest & Survive. "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service.
SOUTH DAKOTA
1890 (-?)
Troops
300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA
1890
Troops
Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE
1891
Troops
Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI
1891
Troops
Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.
IDAHO
1892
Troops
Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII
1893 (-?)
Naval, troops
Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO
1894
Troops
Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed
NICARAGUA
1894
Troops
Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA
1894-95
Naval, troops
Marines land in Sino-Jap War.
KOREA
1894-96
Troops
Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA
1895
Troops, naval
Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA
1896
Troops
Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA
1898-1900
Troops / Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES
1898-1910(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, killed
600,000 Filipinos.
CUBA
1898-1902(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO
1898(-?)
Naval, troops
Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.
GUAM
1898(-?)
Naval, troops / Seized from Spain, still used as base.
MINNESOTA
1898(-?)
Troops
Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA
1898
Troops
Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA
1899(-?)
Troops
Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA
1899
Troops / Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO
1899-1901
Troops / Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA
1901
Troops
Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA
1901-14
Naval, troops
Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.
HONDURAS
1903
Troops
Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REP.
1903-04
Troops
U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA
1904-05
Troops
Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA
1906-09
Troops / Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA
1907
Troops
"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS
1907
Troops
Marines land during war with Nicaragua.
PANAMA
1908
Troops / Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA
1910
Troops
Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS
1911
Troops / U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA
1911-41
Naval, troops
Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA
1912
Troops / U.S. interests protected in Havana.
PANAMA
19l2
Troops / Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS
19l2
Troops / Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA
1912-33
Troops, bombing
20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.
MEXICO
19l3
Naval / Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1914
Naval / Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO
1914
Troops / Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO
1914-18
Naval, troops
Series of interventions against
nationalists.
HAITI
1914-34
Troops, bombing
19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1916-24
Troops
8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA
1917-33
Troops / Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I
19l7-18
Naval, troops
Ships sunk, fought Germany
RUSSIA
1918-22
Naval, troops
Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.
PANAMA
1918-20
Troops
"Police duty" during unrest after elections.
YUGOSLAVIA
1919
Troops
Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
HONDURAS
1919
Troops
Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1920
Troops
2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA
1920-21
Troops, bombing
Army intervenes against
mineworkers.
TURKEY
1922
Troops
Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).
CHINA
1922-27
Naval, troops
Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS
1924-25
Troops
Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA
1925
Troops / Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA
1927-34
Troops / Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR
1932
Naval / Warships sent during Farabundo Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC
1932
Troops / Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II
1941-45
Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear
Fought Axis for 3
years; 1st nuclear war.
DETROIT
1943
Troops
Army puts down Black rebellion.
IRAN
1946
Nuclear threat
Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian
Azerbaijan).
YUGOSLAVIA
1946
Naval / Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.
URUGUAY
1947
Nuclear threat
Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE
1947-49
Command operation
U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
CHINA
1948-49
Troops
Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
GERMANY
1948
Nuclear threat
Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
PHILIPPINES
1948-54
Command operation
CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO
1950
Command operation
Independence rebellion crushed in
Ponce.
KOREA
1950-53
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats
U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN
1953
Command operation
CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM
1954
Nuclear threat
Bombs offered to French to use against siege.
GUATEMALA
1954
Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new govt nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT
1956
Nuclear threat, troops
Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners
LEBANON
1958
Troops, naval / Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ
1958
Nuclear threat
Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA
1958
Nuclear threat
China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA
1958
Troops / Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM
1960-75
Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.
CUBA
1961
Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY
1961
Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
CUBA
1962
Nuclear threat, Naval
Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.
LAOS
1962
Command operation
Military buildup during guerrilla war.
PANAMA
1964
Troops / Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA
1965
Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
1965-66
Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA
1966-67
Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT
1967
Troops / Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES
1968
Troops / After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA
1969-75
Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN
1970
Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS
1971-73
Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA
1973
Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST
1973
Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE
1973
Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA
1975
Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA
1976-92
Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN
1980
Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Emba-ssy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets war-ned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA
1981
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR
1981-92
Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON
1982-84
Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.
HONDURAS
1983-89
Troops / Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
GRENADA
1983-84
Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
IRAN
1984
Jets / Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA
1986
Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA
1986
Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN
1987-88
Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA
1989
Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
1989
Troops
St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES
1989
Jets / Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA
1989-90
Troops, bombing
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA
1990
Troops
Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA
1990-91
Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ
1990-?
Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT
1991
Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
LOS ANGELES
1992
Troops
Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA
1992-94
Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA
1992-94
Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA
1993-95
Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI
1994-96
Troops, naval
Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
CROATIA
1995
Bombing
Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.
ZAIRE (CONGO)
1996-97
Troops
Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA
1997
Troops
Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN
1998
Missiles
Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ
1998-?
Bombing, Missiles
Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA
1999-?
Bombing, Missiles
Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.
YEMEN
2000
Naval
Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.
MACEDONIA
2001
Troops
NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES
2001
Jets, naval
Response to hijacking attacks.
AFGHANISTAN
2001
Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond.
(The first bombing began on October 7, 2001. Several Afghan cities come under aerial attack. The story continues).
This is what I would call a well-documented problem of aggression. Americans should spend more time doing something about this, than about farting over Tilbury.
There is, as always, a tendency toward oversimplification, that leads to the sort of chauvinism one can see in both the jingoistic militarism of the right and the extreme anti-Americanism of the left.
As much as I despise the Bush administration and believe that the war in Iraq is immoral, I'm not so easily swayed by the blanket pronouncements of utter American evil throughout the world. Such matters are more complex than the reductive dogma offered by many critics. It's seductive certainly, but not something that lends to thoughtful discussion (which can't really happen on an internet blog anyway).
If only American evils could, as the list above suggests, be reduced to a series of severe haikus. If only we could all agree in such either/or thinking, then clearly the left would know how to mobilize itself into effective activism.
But alas, things are not so simple, and so we are left looking at individual principled stands like Tilbury's, or Harold Pinter's, and deciding how to respect it even if we disagree with some of the thinking behind it. This, I think, is actually very useful.
It could lead to people deciding what to "do." And often it comes down to this: Can one join and/or lend support to a cause or a movement even when you don't agree with all of, or even many of, the views expressed by some its leaders and associates? I think so.
Posted by: Adam Hill at October 31, 2005 8:54 AMThanks for posting some of that history, Bill. As Tilbury points out, most Americans, even many who oppose the American occupation of Iraq, do not possess a complete understanding of just how continuous this kind of world policing has been, regardless of who happened to be sitting in the White House.
Alright MAP, let it me say that I don't believe you when you claim complete ignorance regarding the existence of civil disobedience and other forms of nonviolent resistance in the US. I don't know how keen you are on the history Bill listed, but surely you are familiar with the Vietnam War and the widespread resistance that manifested itself in countless protests and non-violent actions against the US government. You may argue that in cases where established laws were broken, protesters weren't arrested solely on the basis of their opposition to US foreign policy, but in the majority of cases, people were arrested for seizing their right to peacefully assemble in a public place. When Nixon invaded Cambodia in 1970 student strikes swept through pretty much every University in the country, and not only were thousands incarcerated, some of these students were shot and killed, no MURDERED, by the National Guard. Do I really have to teach you about the Kent State Massacre? Asinine is the right word, and I'm not going to respond to any more queries from you on the matter. If you really are that ignorant I suggest you do some research and learn for yourself, I'm not your history professor.
As for me, I was arrested for the first time in June of 2004 on Sea Island, GA, where the G8 summit was held. If you don't know what the G8 summit is, Google it Michael. I was among a group of about sixty people to march across the sole causeway from Brunswick, GA, the goal being to bring the protest to the summit. The charges were disorderly conduct, obstructing a roadway, and obstructing a police officer. I spent two weeks in the Glynn County Detention Center, awaiting arraignment. I wound up being convicted of nothing. Needless to say I wasn't there to have fun. I was there because I felt that my convictions regarding our government's role in the destruction of civilian life in Iraq needed to extend beyond talking about how much I despised the President. I needed to make a statement and I chose to present a physical challenge, even if it was an insignificant and futile effort.
The second time was in NYC during the RNC. Thousands of people were assembled on the sidewalks just north of Madison Square Garden. Every block was roped in by the police and pretty much everyone in the vicinity was arrested, including some residents who were simply trying to go home. Do I really have to explain the motivations of the protesters? Try finding some pictures of the event and reading some of the signs. I think - maybe - possibly - and this could be a stretch - that they were opposing the war in Iraq, among other things.
MAP: "As far as offending Tilbury, I already covered that; if all Tilbury did was babble on an internet forum (as I've done) I don't think any of us would be bothered in the least. Further, people actually care about his opinions and actions; he's a pivotal and revered figure in the community, whereas I'm just an anonymous random person who's contributed virtually nothing to the community and whose opinion is probably only minimally valued by others. There's no comparison. Tilbury is a towering genius and influence on contemporary music. His opinions and actions really count for a lot; mine count for very little."
This is a bit of a cowardly retreat if you ask me, and it seems to me that it is contrary to your abstract socioeconomic community (although you've still been pretty cloudy on what exactly that entails.) I doubt Tilbury gives a shit about what you say about him (which went from completely mocking both his music and his intellectual integrity to proclaiming him a "towering genius")but certainly what you say here at Bagatellen matters as much as what anybody else here says. If you think its that inconsequential why don't you shut up and stop insulting people for your own amusement? Or better yet, why don't take responsibility for some of the things you said and apologize. You might earn back my respect.
Posted by: Ryan Gregory at October 31, 2005 10:10 AMA similar list could be drawn up for Great Britain, especially if stretching back to the 19th Century. I don't think there's any disagreement that the US carries out bad things, to argue about that would be another thread I think.
What's under discussion is the merits of Tilbury's reaction to bad US things. I agree with Brian that it's his own decision which is personal. The problem - in more ways than one! - comes with his public statement of position. One, it sparks off polemics on internet discussion boards. Two, I don't think his public statement portrays his private decision very well.
Elements such as the hypothetical CIA-man-listening-to-Discrete-Moments bit I found really incredible, and somewhat egotistical. Other elements were difficult to take in respect to what has already been mentioned--that he is not boycotting British concerts. I don't fully accept that he can boycott US concerts on the reasons he describes and not boycott UK concerts.
I would disagree with Nat that he would have to 'martyr' himself or 'cut out his only source of income' in order to do so. People can get jobs anywhere. Damn, I don't get an income from music! But I don't think the crux of the issue is economic. Otherwise, one solution could be to buy enough food, water, etc. to take with you on a trip, go everywhere on a bicycle you brought from the U.K., play shows for free, and be a complete non-particiant in the US economy while abroad! :)
Things have settled down in recent times, but in my first couple of years in the UK, I found myself often taken to task as an American, held up as a representative of generalisations of US culture that don't identify with me. Brit blokes in pubs (including a recent Berklee grad Nat Catch!) saying to me, 'and another thing, why do you guys _______?' I've learned all the comebacks by now, and Tilbury's statement begins with one of the classics, though people never said it to me in such a manner with a pint in their hand:
people in the US are kept in abject ignorance in relation to the world at large
Comeback: the most popular newspaper in the UK is The Sun, which is best known for its 'Page 3' topless model feature, and if I remember rightly ran the front-page headline on the day of Saddam's capture: Got The Bastard! And so forth.
I spent a night in Berlin in the company of three Germans and two Norwegians, so English was spoken at the dinner table. One of the German girls didn't seem to realise the English conversation benefitted myself as well, for as we stood outside waiting for my friend to get the car, she said something to me in German. My clueless shrugs must have been the right answer, as she laughed and said something else. It was all getting a bit comical by the time we were at the bar and she was still speaking German to me, so I had to interrupt and tell her I don't speak German, I have no idea what she's talking about. She asked where am I from then? 'The US,' I reply. 'Ah, Americans, don't they know anything?' Wow, good to meet you, too.
The way I see it is there are assholes and idiots everywhere. Some are running governments, too. Tilbury's private belief is fine if he doesn't like being in the US, so be it. But I really can't stand a lot of the generalisations in his written statement that smack of the kind of generalisations that prejudice me as an American abroad.
Posted by: michael rodgers at October 31, 2005 11:33 AMMAP:
Actually, it was not at all an economic relationship I was referring to, but rather the relationship of shared aesthetic dispositions. I believe that Tilbury (and perhaps anyone) would not be an artist without a community structure in which communication and aesthetic negotiation took place.
I don't believe Adam's remarks are relevant to what I meant either. The type of socio-aesthetic community structure I'm referring to is much more abstract than economics or fanhood.
1. I don't consider "shared aesthetic dispositions" to consitute a "relationship", certainly not a social one. If you're talking about specifically people who attend performances and appreciate his music, I'll reiterate that in present society this is fundamentally an economic relationship.
2. You said very specific group of people with a certain deep relationship to Tilbury (the people who make it possible for him to be an artist)., then you've said
I believe that Tilbury (and perhaps anyone) would not be an artist without a community structure in which communication and aesthetic negotiation took place. (Van Gogh again)
and First, I never claimed that Tilbury's lack of live performance in the US completely obstructed communication and aesthetic negotiation, though I suppose it did prevent a slice of it...Second, these mundane (and mostly economic) activities (CD-buying and review-writing) are not representative of the communication and aesthetic negotiation I was referring to, though I suppose they are minor and superficial aspects of it nonetheless.
Disregarding the fact that a concert is as much economic activity as "review writing and CD buying", can you explain this "socio-aesthetic community". I assume you're familiar enough with AMM to know at least something of their political views (and disagreements). If your "socio-aesthetic community" boils down to people with similar aesthetic dispositions, then do you not think Tilbury might feel a responsibility to other communities - those with shared political dispositions, say the Iraqi trade unionists who still face repression.
Ryan: good post, I hope you get an answer to the substantive points made.
Michael: I thought you enjoyed me having a go at you in the pub! ;)
A similar list could be drawn up for Great Britain, especially if stretching back to the 19th Century
I sort of did that referring to the Boer war, Dresden, and Iraq (1920). You won't get any argument from me on that score. At the moment, the UK doesn't have the military capability to wreak anywhere near as much havoc as it used to, so attention is naturally drawn towards the world's only superpower. There is a lot of knee-jerk anti-Americanism in general, and I think Tilbury underestimates the extent of dissatisfaction in the US generally. Certainly although I complain about the drinking laws and the lack of full fat yoghurt in supermarkets, I've got a lot of respect for Americans as a people, just absolutely none for the US state.
I would disagree with Nat that he would have to 'martyr' himself or 'cut out his only source of income' in order to do so. People can get jobs anywhere.
I think you're forgetting his age here to be honest. I almost made the same point (hardly any improvising musicians in London make a living from it), but I don't think it's fair to expect someone over 65 to "get on their bike" - either to tour the US (as if airport taxes and airline profits aren't "participating") or go jobhunting - and getting a shelf-stacking job in the UK is contributing to the economy as much or more as playing concerts.
the most popular newspaper in the UK is The Sun, which is best known for its 'Page 3' topless model feature. I think you'll agree that UK daily papers have far more international news than US ones, same with the TV networks. Last time I was in the US I saw almost zero coverage of Iraq on the news, lots of car chases. That's no excuse when you have the internet though and the statement didn't ring true for me either. The press is very US-centric, but there's no conspiracy to keep Americans in ignorance either. (wonders what the most popular paper in the US is...)
Elements such as the hypothetical CIA-man-listening-to-Discrete-Moments bit I found really incredible, and somewhat egotistical.
I think that's a fairly oblique reference to the well documented CIA sponsorship of cultural events (including MOMA and abstract impressionism in particular) during the Cold War. Which I happen to have written an article about for the fortnightly newspaper Freedom ;) http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/cultural-cold-war/
Walt: I think my view of these sorts of "boycotts" as quixotic probably stems from my following Shaw in thinking that it's pretty hard to keep one's hands perfectly clean in our dusty world.
I agree with this to a large extent when it comes down to personal lifestyle and shopping habits - it's impossible to avoid complicity in this society, and dropping out does fuck all to change it either. In fact I spend a lot of time arguing against "lifestylism" in my political work/discussions. However in terms of your public activity, what you put your name to, how you conduct yourself socially, I think it's important. And despite this I still won't buy Del Monte or Dole bananas because I know they're directly responsible for the mutilation and disfigurement of children - I'll just happily admit it's inconsistent with buying sweated clothing or whatever.
"wonders what the most popular paper in the US is..."
I believe it's USA Today, followed by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, but I could have the order of those wrong. the most popular tabloids (USA Today isn't a tabloid, it's its own genre) don't sell as many copies as these do, I'm pretty sure.
Posted by: jon abbey at October 31, 2005 1:13 PMYeah tabloids (or at least the sort we have) are pretty specific to the UK afaik, although I don't consider them newspapers :P. USA today would fit under my "hardly any international news" category from what I remember of it, it's roughly like a national version of the Evening Standard iirc.
Posted by: Nat at October 31, 2005 1:32 PMI don't want to make any hasty comments about Ryan's contribution, as it warrants some reflection on the matter of civil disobedience. Interesting stuff duly noted, but there are other points I can quickly address here. It's inaccurate to characterize any of my remarks about Tilbury's music as "mocking"; note above Ryan's phrase "completely mocking...his music...". I've been a fan of AMM for about ten years (hearing "supersession" was one of the first things that really pulled me in); I've seen them live twice (1996 and 2001) and listened to at least half of their public recordings; I also treasure Tilbury's three-disc set of Feldman as a highlight in my Feldman collection. I'm currently disinterested in non-microtonal (and overused) instruments like piano and am further disinclined towards Tilbury's music for other aesthetic reasons (my taste shifted from Feldman to Dumitrescu to oversimplify) aside from my semi-boycott of his music for ideological reasons. None of my remarks could reasonably be construed as mockery of his music.
Since we've gotten this far in the muck on this topic, I'll also offer some personal context to my position on the ideological matter. I'm personally digusted by the US government, though equally as much for domestic policy matters I find much more significant than foreign policy and plenty of European countries share comparable culpability for, but one way or another I think the Bush administration is unethical and abhorrent to the point of surrealism. I completely agree with all these objections (Tilbury's, Bill's, etc) to US aggression. Trust me, I despise US foreign policy (and other aspects of the US government and many other similar governments and many other dissimilar governments) equally as much as Tilbury or anyone in this discussion.
Those things said (none of which needed to be said, as my personal views of Tilbury's music and my personal views about governmental ideology are not relevant to any points I've attempted to make), I wish some of my fellow commentators would read really read what I've written above instead of making these knee-jerk personal attacks at me. My point continues to be that none of this stuff about the US government is relevant to the issue with Tilbury; as much as I recognize value of Bill's post about the evils of the US government for its intrinsic content, in this context it's simply irrelevant and further obscures the issue at hand, which is Tilbury's relationship to a socio-aesthetic community. The essential error in Tilbury's position is a naive symbolic inter-reduction of this community, US residents in general, the US as a geo-social entity, and the US government. You guys can talk till your blue in the face about all this foreign policy stuff, but it's just a diversion from the Tilbury controversy.
Posted by: Michael Anton Parker at October 31, 2005 2:23 PMExplain socio-aesthetic community, please.
I'll be happy to explain anything in my original "theoretical wanking" post that you genuinely didn't understand, or at least direct you to useful sources/definitions.
Posted by: Nat at October 31, 2005 4:05 PMAs an extensional definition, I'd just say it's the group of people who care about a given aesthetic domain. I think I should say more than that and tie it in with Tilbury, but that's a hefty task. I plan to take a stab at it, but it'll consume plenty of hours and might have to take second fiddle to some, uh, badly backlogged scribblings on other matters... But, honestly, after all this discussion, I owe a proper explanation of my "knock-out argument" against Tilbury's position... Forthcoming...
According to my rough estimate as to how long it takes to read a paragraph of text out loud, I think you could have listened to about about half of Tilbury's complete Feldman edition in the time it takes to wade through the above. And given the choice between listening to Bunita Marcus and reading Michael's "proper explanation of my 'knock-out argument'" I'll take the music anytime. I believe that everything worth saying on this thread has now been said.
Posted by: Dan Warburton at October 31, 2005 10:21 PMNat, bro, I was joking about Tilbury getting on his bicycle and riding round the US! And having a go at me in the pub may have been fun the first time . . . :)
Van Gogh was desperate to live in a separate community of artists, he just had trouble socializing. Remember the ear thing? He was freaked out that Gauguin didn't like him!
Communist theory lingo does my head in, and I even took a course in History of Socialism. But I equally don't understand MAP's big-word usage, either. You're all weirdos.
Otherwise I echo Dan's I believe that everything worth saying on this thread has now been said thing, except:
IT'S PARTY TIME!
See y'all later.
Posted by: Michael Rodgers at November 1, 2005 2:31 AMDiana Ross: "I Second That Emotion"!
Posted by: Brian Marley at November 1, 2005 2:37 AMNah, it was Smokey Robinson - I wasn't thinking straight.
Posted by: Brian Marley at November 1, 2005 2:38 AMMuffing it makes a feeble joke even punier.
Think I'll go stick my head in a bucket of water.
Posted by: Brian Marley at November 1, 2005 2:41 AM"one way or another I think the Bush administration is unethical and abhorrent to the point of surrealism" - MAP
One imagines Andre Breton and Tristan Tzara spinning in their umbrella-and-sewing-machine-shaped graves.
:)
I still won't buy Del Monte or Dole bananas because I know they're directly responsible for the mutilation and disfigurement of children - I'll just happily admit it's inconsistent with buying sweated clothing or whatever.
Keep in mind, though, that Dole probably doesn't like the loss of your (or any socialist's) pfennig, while the U.S. gov't is likely pleased as punch not to have anybody with Tilbury's politics foul its hallowed soil.
Again though, whether it "does any good" or not, I don't fault him for his revulsions. I don't like going into churches--even for a good friend's wedding.
Posted by: walto at November 1, 2005 4:39 AMMichaeil: "Communist theory lingo does my head in, and I even took a course in History of Socialism"
The two might be related, a lot of those courses don't help much from the politics/history students I've discussed with.
MAP: "I'd just say it's the group of people who care about a given aesthetic domain"
That's not a community, as you said yourself - it's a "group of people". Are people who own a Mariah Carey CD a "community", how about people who drive the same brand of car?
The most important thing about consumer boycotts is that, from a practical point of view, they're close to pointless (beyond the aforementioned, good-for-the-soul, acting upon your principles) unless the company in question knows you're doing it. You are frankly making more of a difference writing to Del Monte or Dole and telling them you are boycotting their products – even if you're regularly tucking into blood-soaked fruit salads of their murderous produce – than you are simply choosing a different manufacturer. This is in fact a policy I adopted with GAP clothing (not the making fruit salads part of course), simply cos GAP are about the only highstreet store that do mens clothes in sub-leviathan sizes that actually fit me.
I think that lobbying, strike action and verbal and physical protest are more effective than consumer boycotts. George Monbiot's The Age Of Consent is the best-argued, most lucid book I've read on using trade as a means of furthering justice and equality.
TBH, the main reason I don't buy Dole/Del Monte any more, is because if it's so saturated with pesti-/fungicides that it affects the reproductive processes of the workers, then I ain't eating it. Then because it's sickening. I know full well it won't do them any harm as companies, it'll just do less harm to me.
I don't think lobbying, or for that matter protest does much either - both are petitioning people in power to make different policy decisions. To effect real change we need to be in a situation where people make policy decisions themselves, in directly democratic structures opposed to the state. I'm glad there are groups lobbying though, since when they do occasionally win real reforms I'm grateful for the benefits of it. However, nearly every reform in favour of the working class(cf. the British Welfare State) has been a response to mass strikes or social unrest, or at least the threat of it, because people have been demanding and taking what they want directly and collectively rather than asking those whose primary purpose is to defend existing social relations to make changes round the edges.
Trade (which is a euphemism for capitalism, just like when people say "markets" as if they're independent of class relationships) is the cause of injustice and inequality, not the solution to it. Exchange of resources with other countries doesn't have to be achieved by currency exchanges.
Posted by: Nat at November 1, 2005 8:17 AM"Exchange of resources with other countries doesn't have to be achieved by currency exchanges."
That's what the DeBeers family said to the South Africans. :>}
While I'm confident that I don't read bagatellen to learn about politics, I also feel like I owe jon abb and robert an apology for my last post on this topic back when it was under the original review. I deliberately misread and oversimplified their remarks and painted them as considering whatever tilb does as "perfect." I was frustrated with what I perceived as a lack of close thinking on their parts, but i apologize for my reaction.
I actually don't even know why I joined the discussion, considering that Dan W. had already clearly demonstrated what I believed to begin with: while tilb's motives and sympathies may be noble, his argument doesn't hold water. I realize now that some people are impressed with his political articulations, so be it, I am not.
I also think that it's sad when a bunch of people with heavily leftist leanings try to out-left each other with tales (or accusations) of political (non)involvement. Especially when the argument was originally about the inadequacy or merits of Tilbury's argument, not the sentiment behind it.
Sorry to post about it again Dan - I've been in the desert for the last 4 days.
Heard Tilbury play tonight. He was very good. ;)
Posted by: Alastair at November 1, 2005 4:10 PM"I also think that it's sad when a bunch of people with heavily leftist leanings try to out-left each other with tales (or accusations) of political (non)involvement."
I don't think that's been the case. Michael Anton Parker said he had no knowledge of people being incarcerated in the US for opposing foreign policy, Ryan Gregory pointed out that he personally had been as a counter example. I don't think summit protests and some of the activities Matt mentioned achieve very much and stated the same honestly. In the context of alternatives to "boycotts", and what is and is not effective political action, I think that's a reasonable tangent for this discussion to take (since it's a tangent of another discussion itself). What's the point of discussing things if you're going to agree with people all the time?
Fwiw I've got several disagreements with Tilbury's position on travelling to the US (that gig simultaneous with the RNC ought to cover it), and some of the sentiments* expressed in the statement. However I disagree more with the arguments against it as expressed on these threads (or most of them) and don't see why they should go unchallenged.
*Especially the "kept in igorance" which simply isn't true in the country with some of the highest levels of 'net access internationally. There's a far more insipid kind of censorship and ideological positioning in the British press - look at the "left wing" (spits) Guardian's hatchet job on Chomsky yesterday http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,1605276,00.html
no great lover of Chomsky but that interview's one of the worst pieces of journalism I've seen for some time. The Guardian gives it's left-liberal professional readership the illusion of being progressive and left-wing whilst still justifying neo-liberal reforms, attacks on the poor and military intervention, at least the Sun's jingoism is straightforward.
Yeah, sorry if I distracted anyone from the original point of the thread, I was a bit peeved that Michael had the audacity or ignorance to deny a substantial part of our history. I only posted the second time because he asked me to. For the record, I'm not proud of my activism and I wasn't trying to "out-left" anyone. I concluded shortly after the RNC that what I was doing was not the best way to go about effecting change. It all seems foolish to me in hindsight and I don't particuarly enjoy talking about it. I wonder if Tilbury would still consider me "brave". My sentiments on the issue at hand really lean a lot towards what Micahael Rodgers had to say above. I think most of us agree that Tilbury's statement isn't the most reasonable.
Posted by: Ryan Gregory at November 1, 2005 9:23 PMAlso, I don't think there were any accusations of political non-involvement in my statements.
Posted by: Ryan Gregory at November 1, 2005 10:02 PM"I also think that it's sad when a bunch of people with heavily leftist leanings try to out-left each other with tales (or accusations) of political (non)involvement."
I think Unwrinkled's sadness was really for the EXTREMELY leftish left lefties around here: Brian O., Michael R., Adam H., Alan J. and me. I know I speak for all of us when I say that I deeply appreciate his pity but also hope that he's soon out of his funk. Life's too short!
Posted by: walto at November 2, 2005 7:21 AMno worries walto - no bad funk here, that's just the smell of jackfruit curry.
since chomsky was brought up - i'm always reminded, regardless of whatever you think of the merits of the censorship argument they discussed, that the debate between foucault and chomsky was nothing but a success for conservatives: two powerful and popular leftists at odds!
i do think there are merits to people of the leftist persuasion debating in order to clarify priorities and strategies, but the danger i saw with one of hatta's original posts on this topic, and what eneded up happnening, was people telling stories that prove themselves to be leftist. i just think that amping up a debate between people that fundamentally agree about politics (regardless of what exactly they know about any given specific situation ryan ) is less productove than it seems.
also, ryan, i wasn't implying that you were making accusations of not being politically up-to-snuff - I was referring back to an old post of hatta's that said "Far too many people just do nothing beyond making comments on message boards so the fact that he has taken action that may effect him on a personal level (certainly he has lost opportunities for paid gigs) is far more impressive then even the most gregarious message board poster." because i was worried that this would lead to people trying to 'prove' themselves.
I agree with whoever it was who said that the debate over Tilbury's politics is mostly a "tempest in a teapot." Given his beliefs, I think Tilbury is entirely justified in his actions, and I respect his position, even though I generally disagree.
Posted by: David Jones at November 6, 2005 1:23 PM"since chomsky was brought up - i'm always reminded, regardless of whatever you think of the merits of the censorship argument they discussed, that the debate between foucault and chomsky was nothing but a success for conservatives: two powerful and popular leftists at odds!"
An utterly stupid comment. Chomsky and Foucault were discussing the "positioning" of the intellectual as a public figure and its relative merits and problems. C & F were effectively talking past one another. Chomsky didn't understand what Foucault was talking about, basically.
Back to Tilbury. I can't understand anyone in their right mind having trouble with Tilbury boycotting the US. this coming from an American. If you can't see the symbolic resonance of playing music in the states after two invasions, you're utterly clueless. OK so symbolic actions have no "real" consequences. Tell me something new. "Britain is guilty too." Stop denying the obvious. The US runs Britain's foreign policy. This is why tilbury protests the source. "Extreme leftist anti-Americanism." Give me a fucking break! What makes you think you represent America? There's more than one America. there's plenty to like. but there's also more than enough to indict this government.
I must say I like John Tilbury more everyday. And Keith Rowe. And Eddie Prevost. And Nat Catchpole. And especially Cardew. and that whole milieu of politics that drove AMM, born out of a very oppressive British class system. Something Americans will likely never get. Tilbury gets to people psychologically. They can't handle him pointing out their complicity in atrocities, which they only exacerabate by denying the obvious connections. The furor over the boycott only proves his case.
Posted by: Bill Ashline at November 18, 2005 7:06 AMregardless of what you think of the merits...
"Utterly stupid"**"Utterly clueless"**"I can't imagine anyone in their right mind..."
Now there's nuance!
(BTW, congrats on making a new and improved list of approved musician/savants, Nat!)
Posted by: walto at November 18, 2005 9:30 AMBill: "and that whole milieu of politics that drove AMM, born out of a very oppressive British class system. Something Americans will likely never get. "
Well, you can't fault us for not trying to return to an oppressive class system! Neo-Gilded Age, anyone?
"Tilbury gets to people psychologically."
Yes, Tilbury's stance (and your comments, Bill) reminds me of my own lapses of intense pleasure at being an elitist. But all is forgiven. Noblesse oblige and all that.
Posted by: Tom Djll at November 18, 2005 10:16 AM[Bill] If you can't see the symbolic resonance of playing music in the states after two invasions, you're utterly clueless.
[Mike] For me, the symbolic resonance is easy to see, but symbolic resonance is a pretty lame wishy-washy entity, not something I can accept as justification for deviant social behavior.
[Bill] Tilbury gets to people psychologically. They can't handle him pointing out their complicity in atrocities, which they only exacerabate by denying the obvious connections. The furor over the boycott only proves his case.
[Mike] That Tilbury has gotten to me psychologically is a dubious proposition, but too vague to evaluate. If you're saying that I'm personally complicit in the atrocities of the US government, I'll have to not only disagree, but suggest you're guilty of dangerously fanatical ideology. If a handful of Tilbury fans expressing their varied opinion about his ideas on a music website constitutes a "furor over the boycott", I can only suggest that there's no logical connection between this and his ideological position.
[Bill] but there's also more than enough to indict this government.
[Mike] Bill, you continue to miss the point. We all agree with you that the US government is evil, blah blah blah. You're preaching to the choir, man, and it's not Sunday.
Posted by: Michael Anton Parker at November 18, 2005 3:10 PMBill Ashline mentioned that he especially likes Cornelius Cardew more and more. I should like to ask what he admires in Cardew's ideas and practice? By the 1970s, Cardew was a Leninist, an admirer and apologist for a Maoism that had subjugated China to its totalitarian control of all areas of life and killed millions of peasants and workers through its political repressions, bureaucratic stupidity, and aping of superexploitative capitalist industrial development; he was also a member of a political party that sought to secure the same disastrous hierarchical power for itself. This notion that radical political transformation must involve the concentration of power in the hands of an elite is inevitably built on a contemptuous disdain for the ability of ordinary people to understand and manage such change themselves. A similar notion informed Cardew's musical thinking in the 1970s, positing as it did that the 'masses' were hopelessly bound to the most regressive bourgeois musical forms. Consistent with this, Cardew came simply to produce conventional songs with clumsy leftist sloganeering added to them, a fairly faithful reflection of Leninism's conscious or unconscious adherence to many of the cultural forms and ideas of the nineteenth century bourgeoisie. What is there to admire in this, for me, dismal legacy? Is there something else to admire in Cardew's history?
Of course, Cardew eventually came to repudiate Mao. But that was just part of a ritualistic pseudo-critique by which a fallen set of ruling bureaucrats are disdained by successors who propose to hold power themselves on the same essential basis.
Ironically, had Cardew's party succeeded in its aim, all or some of the other people that Bill admires (Eddie Prevost and Nat Catchpole) would doubtless have subsequently fallen victim to it, as the party necessarily sought to destroy all efforts at self-management and autonomy by the people in whose name it proposed to subordinate the whole of society to its authoritarian power.
Posted by: Wayne Spencer at November 19, 2005 12:42 AMjust got this email from andy guhl:
******
> festiwal Muzyki Improwizonwanej, warszawa, poland, 3 concerts
> friday 2. december 2005 at 20 00, art gallery zacheta, ( pl.
> Malachowskiego 3 ):
>
> -andy guhl (cracked everyday electronics and visuells) with birgit
> ulher [trumpet] and karol koszniec [objects, percussions]
>
> -andy guhl (cracked everyday electronics and visuells) with thaw
> [objects, prepared clarinet] and xv parowek [laptop]
>
>
> saturday 3. december 2005 at 12.00 in the church Kosciol
> Ewangelicko-Augsburski p.w. sw. Trojcy (pl. Malachowskiego1),
>
> -andy guhl (cracked everyday electronics and visuells) with john
> tilbury [organs]
>
******
i must say, i would especially be interested in hearing the last concert. but... waaaaait a second, this is strange: didn't poland support the US in the irak invasion...?
Posted by: tomas at November 21, 2005 11:54 AMso did the UK, that's not John's position. John's is simply a direct US boycott, that's it.
Posted by: jon abbey at November 21, 2005 12:39 PMyeah, i guess it is. anyway... guhl/tilbury sounds like an interesting combination, doesn't it.
Posted by: tomas at November 21, 2005 12:48 PMthose look like some ridiculously great concerts in poland. my earjowls are aflame.
Posted by: unwrinkled at November 21, 2005 4:51 PMWayne's right that Cardew's politics differed significantly from either mine, Eddie's or Tilbury's.
The RCPB (M-L) is still going by the way: wikipedia entry but I've never come across them in real life despite having a degree of knowledge of some other Leninist groups in the UK.
I think that Tilbury's decision is very much infantile, although I consider myself a marxist...
it very much resembles a "politics of personal example", very much connected with liberal (i.e. non-scientific) left, or even ultra-left...as I know, Tilbury is also a marxist, or he used to be...
in my oppinion, he surely should've known better that Gandhi or M.L. King, because that decision is something that is characteristic for people who are close to the thinking that "if we boycott something, then we're doing something really bad to it"...
Tilbury's boycotting won't stop the imperialist invasions, nor will smashing McDonalds' do something bad to capitalism...what then you get out of that boycott ??...you're ensuder that you're in no contact with corporate money financing slaughtering all over the globe ?...I think this is not even worth a comment, with all due respect to comrade JT...
why doing something infantile, when you're in position of doing something really productive ??...
go in USA, organise talks and discussions between the concerts, try to connect the musicians with similar views, try to connect the audience with similar views, try to raise the general level of awareness, if you find it low...
you're recording for a label which's run by a man not interested in wider social questions even in his deep sleep, but you're ready to boycott all US-related stuff ?...great...
If I was JT, I'd try talking to him first...
and try to get him in touch with reality...both of the world and improvised music...
p.s.
really, Cornelius' socialist views were much more a parody, than views solidly based in scientific socialism and views that could represent the methods of historical materialism applied to culture...
his sense for simplification is really something unique, maybe that was to change if he wasn't killed...
p.p.s. Wayne, to be a Leninist is a good thing :)
Posted by: future*now at November 30, 2005 5:58 PM"you're recording for a label which's run by a man not interested in wider social questions even in his deep sleep"
go fuck yourself, darko. no idea why I ever wasted so much time trying to talk to you. you have no right to pass judgment on me.
Posted by: jon abbey at November 30, 2005 6:00 PMand obviously John's boycott not only includes me, it revolves around me, as I don't see any other US labels eager to put out his releases or book him for shows. so get your facts straight, you condescending asshole.
Posted by: jon abbey at November 30, 2005 6:03 PMChristian Wolff did try to get him to go to Boston once, that's all I know of.
Posted by: jon abbey at November 30, 2005 6:05 PMpoint was next one:
I think that Tilbury's boycotting of US-related affairs meant a certain political message, whatmore - I am sure...
JT is, as we know, a leftist (let's get here broadest possible category) and he decided to boycott US-related affairs in protest against what we all know US represents - policeman of global capital..
I'm 10000% behind the decision to resist and fight against global exploitation and poverty, but here we must pose a question of one's judgement of that fight...
I said: if JT really wants to do all that he can to put this shame for human race to an end - he will not reach for that kind of ineffective measures which will contribute to nothing...
I really don't see how JT's boycott will abolish capital-relation and all attrocities coming out of that, which is the goal we all should strive towards...
therefore - I see it as futile and infantile...much more when one would justify that decision with: "That's his personal decision"...no doubt about that, but then - what are you trying to do, whenever you find one system to be repressive, you'll boycott it ??...that will not bring any change that would matter in reality...
in efforts we all should make there can be no things like "personal decisions"...
regarding this snobby record owner, my point was next: if John Tilbuty is already boycotting, he shouldn't be boycotting, among all, Erstwhile because of that label's geographic position, but because of that label's "head poncho", mister to whom we can never be grateful enough, one of those which "we need more in this world" - Jon Abbey, because his reactionary socio-political views...
if you wanna make something that counts, try to influence the person who's a sort of paradigm for a creature largely indolent towards any social changes, or critical thinking whatsoever...
at least - try it...ok, JT ?...
as I write this, I remember what Jon Abbey once said: "Only two things are infinite; my prepotence and ability to freely improvise. And I'm not so sure about the latter".
;-D
avant-garde art for the people !!!
I wish contributors, especially those with enough ass to enjoy a conflagration, would use their real names. For me, your credibility might be helped by a little transparency.
Come into a room swinging and people are going to want to know who you are.
If you are going to engage in the ad hominem sort of pugilism, staining another's name, your anonymity is really weak.
he's not trying to hide, as I explained to Al earlier tonight. his real e-mail is right there, his name's Darko, and he's a 20 year old kid from Belgrade who I made the mistake of spending too much time in private communication with earlier this year. his content should be assailed, not his identity. for instance, making up quotes from me, even in an obviously lame attempt at humor, is pretty "infantile", to use his own inappropriately used modifier.
I sure spend a lot of time here defending people that don't like me. :)
Posted by: jon abbey at November 30, 2005 10:16 PMah, I see his e-mail's not on this post, but it was on the previous one.
Posted by: jon abbey at November 30, 2005 10:17 PM"I'm a Marxist - of the Groucho sort" (French student manning the barricades in 1968)
Posted by: Dan Warburton at November 30, 2005 10:32 PMp.p.s. Wayne, to be a Leninist is a good thing :)
i'd say, it's rather misguided, for a lack of a more polite word. seems really strange to me that a person coming from a country that's still recovering from devastating consequences that are a straight result of realization of this ideology, would take on this dillusioned metaphoric.
Posted by: Grisha at December 1, 2005 12:26 AM[Darko, referring to Jon Abbey] if you wanna make something that counts, try to influence the person who's a sort of paradigm for a creature largely indolent towards any social changes, or critical thinking whatsoever...
[Mike] This is a statement that can't be taken seriously. Having read dozens of posts by Jon on this very website, I can attest he is not only a critical thinker, but an especially good example of one. He routinely takes people to task for their lack of critical thinking, in an incisive, fair way. The archives of Bagatellen are available 24/7 and so I'll let the recorded evidence speak for itself.
I have no knowledge of Jon's views on matters of social philosophy, and I can't think of any reason why I should, but, Darko, it's wrong to judge people for failing to channel their energies into your specific concept of "social change". There are thousands of different kinds of social change and roles people can serve according to their diverse dispositions. I'm sure many have eluded your observations up to this point, so I'd encourage you to be more respectful of others who don't conform to your ideals.
Now if only I can find time to catch up on other Bags threads, not to mention half-finished blog entries and record reviews... :-(
Posted by: Michael Anton Parker at December 1, 2005 3:47 AMMAP: "Having read dozens of posts by Jon on this very website, I can attest he is not only a critical thinker, but an especially good example of one."
I agree!
Posted by: Brian Marley at December 1, 2005 3:49 AMthus spake the voice of reason..."hey future, isn't jon abbey a guy that makes records? really good (and often great) records? i must have missed the link on the erst site for a socio-political mission statement. once he throws his hat into the ring for political nomination then feel free to take him to task over your supposed understanding of his views on social change. until then a simple thank you for making some interesting music possible will suffice."
Posted by: todd q at December 1, 2005 4:55 AMFunny, when dude mentioned John 'recording for a label' blah blah blah the first label that came into my mind was Matchless! How's that for Euro-centrism?
On a different note I saw Tilbury playing with an American, Barry Weisblat, in a quartet with Eddie Prevost and Margarida Garcia last night in London. I didn't see any attempts to boycott Barry, unless turning up a little late counts. That's just tardiness though, isn't it?
Like the continuation of this thread is a little 'tardy if you get me drift.
M
Posted by: Michael Rodgers at December 1, 2005 10:59 AM"i'd say, it's rather misguided, for a lack of a more polite word. seems really strange to me that a person coming from a country that's still recovering from devastating consequences that are a straight result of realization of this ideology, would take on this dillusioned metaphoric."
no, not misguided - devastating consequences you're mentioning are due to the fact that Serbia (and ex-YU) got thru relentless western salvaging last 15 years and that is to continue...
yes, socialism in ex-YU (as elsewhere) was degenerated, but was that precisely because leading bureaucrats abandoned revolutionary course after 1947...
catastrophe that happened in Eastern block didn't happen because the leading party bureaucrats were "dedicated communists", but because they abandoned socialism decades before 1990, in greater or less extent...
and for greater insight in my thoughts on relation of improvised music and wider socio-political contexts, wait for my text that will appear soon enough, now I know that there can not be no further delays...
I'm at least sure that every one of you can at least "smell" connection between avant-garde art on one hand and advanced socio-political thinking on the other, but there's a nice ammount of you who wouldn't acknowledge it, from one reason or the other...
more of that to come...
D.
Posted by: future*now at December 2, 2005 5:36 AMI think it's time we put this thread to bed zzzzz
Posted by: Dan Warburton at December 2, 2005 6:24 AM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................