I support the war in Afghanistan because I believe the Al Qua'eda network is an enemy that must be eliminated. I stand almost alone in my community and in my family in this belief.

February 27, 2002 11:43 PM

I support the war in Afghanistan because I believe the Al Qua'eda network is an enemy that must be eliminated. I stand almost alone in my community and in my family in this belief. A former punk describes how she re-examined her beliefs after Sept. 11 and found out that what the extreme left were saying was as tired and reactionary as those from the extreme right. This piece posted on Blogs of War was turned down for submission in Punk Planet as not being timely enough...or was it because it was too moderate. After yesterday's post on Punk=Capitalism is this a meta trend?
posted by AsiaInsider (34 comments total)

Huh? Hasn't this already been hashed to death? Or does the marginal variation of the punk perspective merit re-examination? Not putting down this topic, just wondering.
posted by artifex at 12:04 AM on February 28, 2002

It just seems that the meta trend is that most of the US has just veered more to the extreme right. Those who were on the extreme left seem to have moved closer to being more moderates as well. I don't disagree with what she wrote but I always wondered how people like creationist and anti-WTO people could be so strong in their beliefs in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary.
posted by AsiaInsider at 12:10 AM on February 28, 2002

boy have the punks ever softened up since the good ol' days of 1983.

would that the victims of Roberto D'Aubisson et al had friends with blogs.
posted by ssdecontrol at 12:22 AM on February 28, 2002

1983 and 1998 (date of the SOA link) were different days and different places.

Today's brutes can come from the London School of Economics and claim to be acting on behalf of the people.
posted by AsiaInsider at 12:35 AM on February 28, 2002

"boy have the punks ever softened up since the good ol' days of 1983."

Me, I blame Blink-182...
posted by black8 at 1:14 AM on February 28, 2002

Idealistic people sometimes get disillusioned when they realise that things aren't as simple as they thought. Or maybe you just get more selfish when you get older. Anyway, people moving from left to right is a pretty old meta-trend. It would be a bit odd for the punks not to change their minds at all in 20 years. Plus ca change...

And it's not a new thing for opinions to be changed by personal tragedy. Not necessarily a good thing either, unless the lives of your friends really are more valuable that those of others.
posted by Gaz at 4:17 AM on February 28, 2002

seems that the meta trend is that most of the US has just veered more to the extreme right
I think it's the center ("the rational center" if you're biased like me) , and most of America has been there all along. America is not big on boat-rocking (often a good thing).

unless the lives of your friends really are more valuable that those of others
They're not? At least in personal perception they are, and shouldn't they be?
posted by owillis at 4:48 AM on February 28, 2002

They're not? At least in personal perception they are, and shouldn't they be?
Sure, but it may not be a good idea to base your politics around helping your friends. That way lies madness. But I daresay books have been written about how to balance friendship with altruism; you might not see things clearly just after one of your friends has died.
posted by Gaz at 5:01 AM on February 28, 2002

It's all Reagan's fault.
posted by ph00dz at 5:29 AM on February 28, 2002

Its Chomsky's fault
posted by AsiaInsider at 5:35 AM on February 28, 2002

If one moves to this or that direction, it is a sign of selling out, age, emoltions, whatever--could it be that on some issues you think one wayh and on others, another way? Why must there always be Left responses from Liberals and Right responses from Conservatives instead of deciding on case by case issue?
posted by Postroad at 5:41 AM on February 28, 2002

Stooges rock
posted by Settle at 6:04 AM on February 28, 2002

I find it quite funny that people can be so devout to their political opinions.. yet one thing happens, and suddenly they totally change them! Surely this demonstrates that politics is really not as important as some people think it is.. yet you're still going to meet nuts from both left and right who claim they would 'die' for their views. Politics = the sux.
posted by wackybrit at 6:10 AM on February 28, 2002

What the hell does "punk" have to do with ANYTHING besides music? If nothing else, this little article should suffice as evidence that "punk" is completely meaningless outside the domain of music. No politics, no social agenda, no stance on any kind of public policy is inherent to any musical genre. It's only music, for fuck's sake. Get a life.
posted by yesster at 7:21 AM on February 28, 2002

yesster: So if music is separate from political opinion, then perhaps books are too? I'll remember that when I read the extremely apolitic opinions expressed by Marx, or in Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. Perhaps you forget that punk did have an agenda in the 70s and 80s.. of course, now the only agenda of punk is to make lots of money and brainwash clueless 16 year olds.
posted by wackybrit at 7:42 AM on February 28, 2002

I don't deny that individual artists, or individual songs, can have a political message. I just think it is inherently idiotic to think that a political ideology can be formed by, or represented by, a musical genre that is as diverse as punk. Besides, it's just music. The presence of music is important to our culture; the idealogical content of music is just fluff.
posted by yesster at 7:58 AM on February 28, 2002

It's clear that the RIAA must change its business model, but they have no idea what to replace it with. And with respect to the previous post by mathowie, I would like to take his suggestion one step further.
Try subscription. I know that I would willingly subscribe to an artist, on a per year basis, for 20-50 dollars, based on the significance of that artist, and the terms of that subscription (how may tracks do I get per year, - mode of distribution, digital , vs. vinyl, etc.) You could even include content (membership at the website, exclusive interviews, lyrics, etc.) and merchandise i.e. deals on shows, t-shirts, etc.. I would pay even more for access to the entire catalog of recordings for that artist.
For example, I bought the new Bob Dylan this year, spent about $18 for the CD. But that’s about all he’s getting from me this year. However, if I had the option to subscribe, he probably could have gotten a lot more.
Of course as far as new artists go, the RIAA could put together package subscriptions, where you pick artists & tracks ad-hoc.
We all love music, and no one really wants to rip off the artist, (well, unless you count Limp Bizkit) but at 12-20 dollars a pop, I get more value from other entertainment options. And that is the crux of the issue. The RIAA will continue to have these problems as long as they deliver a crappy product using an out-dated distribution model.
posted by lilboo at 8:00 AM on February 28, 2002

apologies for above - posted on wrong topic
posted by lilboo at 8:06 AM on February 28, 2002

All humor and digs at punk aside...

I live in Portland, Oregon. There are very active liberal segments of the population, combined with an unsigned, underground, very good collection of punk musicians.

About half of the people that I rock climb with fit into the 'punk' stereotype. They listen to punk music, some of them are musicians, most of them are dyed, pierced, tatooed, and as my faux-punk sister puts it, "all damn-the-man".

(definition:
Punk: Someone who is genuinely disaffected with the way our society is run and beleives in a different incarnation. Is willing to sacrifice self or comfort for ideals.
faux-punk: Disaffected middle-class white children from the suburbs who are wannabes)

(Note: I'm not punk. I'm not faux-punk. I'm a business major at a big university and I have an office job.)

I've noticed an odd shift since 9/11 in the true punk segment of our society. To be honest, I have a pet theory that 9/11 could be marked as the expiration date of true punk.

Carrie quit her job at the alternative beauty salon where she dyed hair flourescent colors all day and enrolled in the biggest, baddest, toughest, meanest school in Portland; Reed College. After shaving hear head when she left the salon, she's now going undyed for the first time since she turned 14. She's also getting excellent evaluations. Last week, she was traverse-climbing with one hand while the other held a textbook.

Jim stopped wearing studded black leather. The day after he first learned how to tie a tie, he got a job working in the mayor's office as an assistant press liason to the liberal press. So far, he's managed to help smooth over a couple of controversies with the police, and turned the press's attention to the plight of some of Portland's homeless. Asked if he likes what he's doing, 'working for the man', he said the following, which shocked the hell out of our group of friends: "You know, it's strange. I always thought I'd hate working in an office with people who had made themselves important. But I've learned a lot, and by working with the mayor's office instead of standing out front with a posterboard sign, an effigy of the mayor, and a torch, I'm actually doing more to promote my social agenda and goals than I ever was before. Plus, for the first time, I actually get respect from people who aren't punks, and I can sit down in a nice restaurant and have dinner with my parents without making them feel uncomfortable. You have no idea how good that feels sometimes."

I think the 'punks' are moving more towards the center, but I don't think it's one event that has caused that. Call it a maturing instead. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time until a new political party that works springs up, with the punks as its base. (I wouldn't be surprised if Jim's working for them.)
posted by SpecialK at 9:01 AM on February 28, 2002

Punk: Someone who is genuinely disaffected with the way our society is run and beleives in a different incarnation. Is willing to sacrifice self or comfort for ideals.

I think we have to be a little more specific than that, unless Ted Kascynski, Brother Jed, Ralph Nader, and everyone who works as a public defender instead of doing corporate law count too.
posted by rodii at 9:12 AM on February 28, 2002

I don't understand why Tristan expects to be patted on the back for thinking for himself. Statements like this:

The Left does not speak for me on this issue. I find Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Katha Politt, Susan Sontag et al's attempts to blame the U.S. for this mass murder ideologically weak and morally absurd.

tell me that his view wasn't all that nuanced or informed to begin with. Hey, the Left doesn't speak for me. Neither does the Right. Both make relevant points, however.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:01 AM on February 28, 2002

(Tristan's a she.)

Part of Tristan's beleifs were to be aligned with a particular group of people who all thought, theoretically, the same thing. To me, the Left kind of is about groupthink.

I'll pat anyone who thinks for themselves on the back. It's something that isn't done enough these days.
posted by SpecialK at 10:28 AM on February 28, 2002

(Pardon, longer post.)

Agreed, Tristan did write a very thoughtful piece about the dangers of groupspeak and unthinking adherence to a specific point of view. It's unfortnate it won't go over well with people whose primary interest is creating a comfort zone for expressing dissent. One way to look at the situation is that leftists and punks who supported the war in Afghanistan sold out, cut and run as soon as their own country came under attack. However, I think it would be more accurate to say that the Bush Administration is starting to work on some of the issues that are important to people on the left, and that "left" politics in the US doesn't necessarily equate to pacifism. An example: one Quaker lady told me that Bush winning the election wasn't entirely a bad thing, because he appeared more receptive to de-alerting of nuclear weapons.

The punks and metal fans have always known in their hearts that something was wrong with this world, and that's why they've gravitated toward things like black clothing with "Anthrax" and "Black Death - European Tour" -- issues that are finally coming out into the open. Punks and Wiccans often have an affinity, and I'm seeing evangelical columnists express dismay at Wiccans in the military being recognized as a religious group, at Islam coming into the White House, etc. Taking an interest in the concerns of the Arab world is now relatively mainstream, instead of a religious/ethnic/fringe left position.

Many people became active in liberal or left politics out of concern about nuclear weapons. My dad thought that one of the cable news analysts, who has done some serious anti-nuclear work, was simply an America-first hawk, when he's actually someone who is very opposed to weapons proliferation.

Simplifying all politics into "left vs. right" doesn't acknowledge the full complexity of the world, or the fact that some people who appear to be opponents on one set of issues may actually share common ground on other points. "Fortunately, outside of youth culture, outside of punk rock world and aging baby boomers, there is a stabler and smarter Left which recognizes and contains the complexity of a truer vision of the U.S." I like Meade's viewpoint in "Special Providence," that there are actually four tendencies in US foreign policy, the Wilsonian (morality, spread democracy), Hamiltonian (economics, keep business strong), Jeffersonian (populist, anti-imperialist), and Jacksonian (populist, hawks). Perhaps more sophisticated ways of looking at things will start to catch on. A new punk party would be interesting- neither the knee-jerk Green pacifist wing nor the liberal Democrats appear prepared to take on folks like Tristan.
posted by sheauga at 10:53 AM on February 28, 2002

(Pardon, longer post.)

Agreed, Tristan did write a very thoughtful piece about the dangers of groupspeak and unthinking adherence to a specific point of view. It's unfortnate it won't go over well with people whose primary interest is creating a comfort zone for expressing dissent. One way to look at the situation is that leftists and punks who supported the war in Afghanistan sold out, cut and run as soon as their own country came under attack. However, I think it would be more accurate to say that the Bush Administration is starting to work on some of the issues that are important to people on the left, and that "left" politics in the US doesn't necessarily equate to pacifism. An example: one Quaker lady told me that Bush winning the election wasn't entirely a bad thing, because he appeared more receptive to de-alerting of nuclear weapons.

The punks and metal fans have always known in their hearts that something was wrong with this world, and that's why they've gravitated toward things like black clothing with "Anthrax" and "Black Death - European Tour" -- issues that are finally coming out into the open. Punks and Wiccans often have an affinity, and I'm seeing evangelical columnists express dismay at Wiccans in the military being recognized as a religious group, at Islam coming into the White House, etc. Taking an interest in the concerns of the Arab world is now relatively mainstream, instead of a religious/ethnic/fringe left position.

Many people became active in liberal or left politics out of concern about nuclear weapons. My dad thought that one of the cable news analysts, who has done some serious anti-nuclear work, was simply an America-first hawk, when he's actually someone who is very opposed to weapons proliferation.

Simplifying all politics into "left vs. right" doesn't acknowledge the full complexity of the world, or the fact that some people who appear to be opponents on one set of issues may actually share common ground on other points. "Fortunately, outside of youth culture, outside of punk rock world and aging baby boomers, there is a stabler and smarter Left which recognizes and contains the complexity of a truer vision of the U.S." I like Meade's viewpoint in "Special Providence," that there are actually four tendencies in US foreign policy, the Wilsonian (morality, spread democracy), Hamiltonian (economics, keep business strong), Jeffersonian (populist, anti-imperialist), and Jacksonian (populist, hawks). Perhaps more sophisticated ways of looking at things will start to catch on. A new punk party would be interesting- neither the knee-jerk Green pacifist wing nor the liberal Democrats appear prepared to take on folks like Tristan.
posted by sheauga at 10:55 AM on February 28, 2002

(sorry! got an error message first time, hit post twice.)
posted by sheauga at 10:58 AM on February 28, 2002

I'll pat anyone who thinks for themselves on the back. It's something that isn't done enough these days.

Or ever. I sympathize with the writer, of course, but much of the essay seemed seems an angry reaction against a set of beliefs that were simplistic to begin with.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:11 AM on February 28, 2002

Ty - My impression is that group-think subcultures have simplistic beleifs by default.

I hope I'm not wrong, but I haven't found any indications that this isn't true.
posted by SpecialK at 12:54 PM on February 28, 2002

Ty - My impression is that group-think subcultures have simplistic beleifs by default.

Agreed, but then it depends on how you define "group-think subculture". A member of the Rational Center isn't necessarily more or less hive-minded than an ardent leftist or rightist. I think escaping group-think has more to do with the level of skepticism one maintains toward all political persuasions than with one's particular political ideology (or lack of).
posted by Ty Webb at 1:40 PM on February 28, 2002

in the end, i guess its a personal decision for each of us on how we respond to things. I really like the part where she says that among her friends that she is viewed as something of an oddity or an outlier.

That's what the stereotype of a punk is isn't it?

Anyway, real punks derive angst from a nihilistic agenda as poster Yesster commented on. They are more Dada than Marx.

I really liked Tristan's essay and posted it because she talks for many of us, including myself, that its time to put away our safety pins and spiked hair and think like a non-conformist than look like a non conformist. Some in the Anti-WTO crowd act more like anti-conformist than non-conformist.

I have lived in both the Soviet Union and in China. Before you go espousing marxism...try living there for about a year.

excellent comments by people. thank you.
posted by AsiaInsider at 4:31 PM on February 28, 2002

AsiaInsider - more like anti-conformist than non-conformist

That's a rockin' good line, AsiaInsider.
posted by NortonDC at 6:48 PM on February 28, 2002

Also in the news: Local 11 year-old boy decides that girls aren't "icky" any more.
posted by bingo at 8:37 PM on February 28, 2002

Later in the news: Another 10 year old boy declares the 11 year old boy a sell-out to the "Man."
posted by AsiaInsider at 2:12 AM on March 1, 2002

Before you go espousing marxism...try living there for about a year.

Anyone from the US or Western Europe who is bold enough to attempt a year or more as a working person in a Marxist country learns an awful lot from the experience, regardless of their politics, don't you think?
posted by sheauga at 11:04 AM on March 1, 2002

I know I did. One thing that I did learn was that communism sucks.
posted by AsiaInsider at 3:20 AM on March 2, 2002