The marches in the United States in response
to the murder of George Floyd have brought
a lot of much needed attention to the issue
of police brutality and racism. Regardless
of what you might think about any individual
slogan that has been chanted at these protests,
the fact remains that society benefits when
we hold accountable those who have the power
to police, and even to kill.
But, trying to take advantage of these protests,
some sectors of the authoritarian “far left”
have started a kind of “cultural revolution”,
trying to silence their “counter-revolutionary”
opponents, as well as any ideas that remind
us too much of The Old World. Though this
has been met with a lot of pushback from just
normal people trying to live their lives,
it has also served as an opportunity for the
far-right to push for authoritarianism from
their side.
Calls for the military to act in civil society, or for laws that restrict “harmful” speech, are all just examples
of how they are also part of the threat against
our freedom of thought and our freedom of speech.
If you care about art, and about access to
knowledge, this is something that you should worry about
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Why
do I have to watch some bearded asshole talk
about things like this? Isn’t this supposed
to be about metal””
Putting aside that it’s a bit hurtful that
you would say it like that, there are two
reasons why you should care:
First, if you just want to be pragmatic about
it, heavy metal, our genre of music, with
the heresy, the blood, the aggression, the
sometimes overt politics, is exactly the kind
of thing that is targeted whenever Culture
Wars are fought. The “Cancel Culture”
will come for it, as it has done in the past,
either with leftists calling metal culture
a “white” “fascist” environment, or
with right wingers attacking it as a Satanist
and violent haven. So don’t think that ignoring
this situation will leave you free from its
consequences.
Second, and most importantly, it’s never
good for a society to move towards authoritarianism.
Of course, it is always tempting to believe
that you have somehow reached moral perfection,
so that your ideas should become the rule
for everyone but, in reality, we will never
reach that kind of perfection.
It’s because of this that we need to always have the ability to ask questions, to break with established
dogmas, and to be offensive.
Although not every offensive or hurtful thing ever said
was useful, the fact remains that every inch
of progress that we’ve achieved as a species,
started off with an offensive idea that broke
with societal norms.
But, before we begin, I want to make one thing
clear: This isn’t about “politics”.
At least not in a traditional sense of the
word. I won’t be telling you who to vote
for in any election, or proselytizing in favor
of a political party. Inevitably, there will
be certain issues that, for whatever reason,
do fall in the left vs. right paradigm, or
which refer to specific individuals who, in
turn, have political ideas. What I want to
ask you, is that when you listen to those
sections, you think about them as evidentiary
questions, and not as ideological questions.
The points that I am making, and you are obviously
more than welcome to disagree with them, should
succeed or fail on their own merits, and not
based on which political t-shirt you happen
to be wearing.
In other words, this isn’t one of those
videos about how “social justice warriors are
taking over the world”, or “goose-stepping
Russian Fascists are just around the corner”.
And that’s because, believe it or not, there
are more options than just falling into that
completely artificial division that keeps
all of us fighting with each other.
So, with that being said, let’s begin.
After the murder of George Floyd, people took
to the streets in many parts of the world,
to express their disgust at what happened.
They saw it as an opportunity to stand up
for victims of brutality and racism, and hoped
to make a difference. It’s obvious that
there were also people who just wanted to
loot or to break stuff, but, by and large,
people were united by the sadness, the pain,
and the anger, of seeing someone being murdered
in cold blood, by a police officer, in what
is supposed to be the World’s Greatest Democracy
But, what started as a call for reform and
accountability for the police and other state
actors, quickly started to morph into a larger
social movement. All of a sudden, it wasn’t
just about police brutality, or racism, but
also about reshaping culture.
First, statues were tore down or defaced,
as a way to demonstrate solidarity with the
suffering of African slaves, such as statues
commemorating the pro-slavery Confederacy
in the United States, or monuments to King
Leopold II in Belgium, a man singularly responsible
for the unspeakable horrors that affected
the people of Congo.
Now, regardless of what you think about how
those statues were removed (after all some
were removed by cities themselves, while others
were forcibly removed by mobs), it’s at
least easy to understand WHY people had a
problem with them. They represented moments
in history that people no longer wanted to
honor. Kind of like why a lot of people want
to see Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein’s
stars removed from the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
The problem for me wasn’t so much that statues
were being removed, but instead about how
things were being done. It’s not a blind
support for law and order, but instead a concern
for just allowing mobs to decide for everyone.
Of course, it’s easy to support mobs when
you agree with them (and, I personally don’t
think that people like Leopold II, or the
Confederacy, deserve monuments in their honor)
but, if the French Revolution taught us anything,
is that mobs often end up eating their own.
Plus, as it was obvious, statues weren’t
the only things being targeted. More and more
people and forms of expression have been targeted
as “problematic,” and “cancelled”.
Bizarrely, for example, the film Gone with
the Wind was pulled from HBO’s streaming
service, because it contained some rather
racist content.
While I like Gone with the Wind as a film,
and I sincerely recommend it (at least if
you have 4 hours to kill) it is true that
it shows a very false image of slavery. When
they are on screen (the movie isn’t about
slavery) African Americans appear docile and
naturally subservient to their white masters,
and almost thankful for the opportunity to
serve them. Also, the Confederacy appears
as a rather gallant organization… which
I guess it was, as long as you weren’t one
of the thousands of slaves they went to war
to keep in their chains. So I fully understand
why people take issue with the film. I’m
originally from Latin America, so I think
I can relate to how it feels to see your people
depicted in very cartoonish and offensively
condescending ways.
But, at the same time, I have to take issue
with the idea that art needs to be sanitized
and constantly revised to fit our current
standards. Particularly at a time when, due
to the death of physical media, most of us
rely on streaming services to access content,
this type of move is worrying. Although “cancelling”
a film is not the same as censoring it legally,
if you push distributors to not carry it,
the effect ends up being the same: Virtually
no way to access certain types of expression.
Thankfully, HBO does plan to bring the film
back to their service eventually, once it
can place it with an adequate “explanation
and a denouncement” of its racist depictions.
While this is positive, and more content,
especially educational content, is always
welcome, I find it slightly condescending
that they feel that people would not be able
to understand the film for what it is, unless
they are spoon fed a lesson on how it is not
a realistic portrayal of the Confederacy.
Also, since it’s obvious that nobody has
the funds to make little documentaries to
go with EVERY film containing something offensive,
what’s going to happen with the films that
are not at the level of Gone with the Wind?
Will they be ignored? Or will streaming services
be expected to purge themselves from anything
that might offend our modern sensitivities?
This isn’t really a joke or a crazy “slipper-slope”
scenario. Just go and watch old films… even
stuff from the 80’s is extremely “offensive”
by modern standards. The sexual and racial
dynamics portrayed in many old films are not
something that we should seek to emulate,
but I don’t think humanity would benefit
from simply pretending those things don’t
exist. And it’s not even because “every
expression” is necessarily valuable, but
instead because there is nobody on the Planet
we should trust enough to tell us what forms
of expression are “acceptable” for us
to consume. Just like you don’t need to
be religious to believe in the right to exercise
a religion, you don’t need to like a type
of expression, to think that it has a right
to exist, and for people to access it, if
they’re interested.
CHOMSKY: I'm saying that if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for....
...views you don't like.
I mean, Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin.
If you're in favor of freedom of speech that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely...
...for views you despise.
Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech.
There's 2 positions you can have on freedom of speech.
And you can decide which position you want
Before we move on, there’s something that
I want to point out. Since nowadays a lot
of the “cancel culture” comes from the
far left, it’s easy for people from the
far right to paint themselves as warriors
for free speech, but don’t fall for those
siren calls. When it has benefitted them,
they’ve been more than happy to exploit
the same kind of basic fears and grievances
that the left is pushing now. As Derek Bok,
the former president of Harvard University
stated in 1991,
Although I clearly wasn't alive at the time of
the civil rights movement, I’m old enough
to remember the run-up to the 2º American
War in Iraq, and I clearly remember how voices
that opposed that war, were shunned and pushed
away. In music, for example, The Dixie Chicks,
a country music group from Texas, were blacklisted
from thousands of country radio stations, the members received death threats, and their concerts were...
boycotted after they publicly criticized George W. Bush and his immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq.
This wasn’t an isolated case, as
commentators made it clear that dissent was
not the PATRIOTIC thing to do, and that there
was an obligation (although not a legal one)
to keep quiet. As former Fox news commentator, and accused sex offender, Bill O’Reilly stated on his show:
O'Reilly:It is our duty as loyal Americans to shut up once the fighting begins
Once the war against Saddam begins we expect every American to support our military and if they can't do that,
to shut up.
The current version of the “cancel culture”
is built around outrage journalism. The type
of reporting that has shaped “new media”,
and where things are often presented without
any kind of nuance. A place where disagreements
are shown as unforgivable sins, and where,
we are told, our feelings need to be protected
at all costs. There is a certain condescension
that is inherent to this narrative, and which
assumes that all of us are such weak people,
that hurtful ideas can be just too damaging
for us to tolerate, and that the works of
“offensive people” must therefore be suppressed.
Now, of course, you might be thinking that
this isn’t really relevant to us, since
the Cancel Culture is really going against
racists and misogynists, so that it’s not
like we need to care about the people being
cancelled. But the problem is that things
aren’t so easy. For every “easy” case,
there are countless ones where it all depends
on what definitions we use. For example:
Can practicing Muslims be anti-Muslim? Apparently, as Maajid Nawaz found out, when he was included in the
Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of “anti-muslim
extremists” because of his vocal opposition
to Islamic extremism, from a Muslim point of view.
Is non-violence racist?
Well, apparently, as data scientist David
Shor found out when he was fired from his
job (because people demanded this “cancellation”)
for having tweeted a study, published by an
African American professor, on how non-violent
protests, have historically been more successful
than violent ones. The demands for his cancellation
came because it was perceived that not supporting
the violent protesters, meant that he harbored
“anti-black” sentiments.
And still, this might be a price that you
are willing to pay, because you think that
cancelling racists and misogynists is worth
it. But at least be honest about how, by supporting
this, you are opening the door for a big part
of culture to disappear, and for many people
to be unjustly punished. Don’t fool yourself
into thinking that cancellations only happen
to famous people who have the money to continue
living off of what they’ve made. They also
affect everyday people, who just happened
to offend the wrong person or group, and whose
stories never reach mainstream audiences.
Are you looking forward to attending a show?
Well, remember that bands can get cancelled
or boycotted not for what they say in their
music, but also by what people assume they
might think, or what they’ve done in their
private lives. Should the music of convicted
or accused criminals be removed from streaming
services? Although it’s tempting to
only think of early black metal’s infamous
history of crimes. Also think 2Pac Shakur,
who was convicted of gang rape in 1993. Or
David Bowie’s questionable histories with
underage groupies, or Michael Jackson’s
penchant for sleepovers with underage boys.
Should their works be cancelled and removed,
just because there’s evidence that they
might have been bad people?
Or what about things that offend our sensitivities.
If I, for example, demand that something is
“cancelled” because it offends me as someone
from Latin America, can I then deny that possibility
to someone who wants to “cancel” black
metal because it offends their religious sensitivities?
Don’t forget that, all throughout history,
religion has always been at the forefront
of silencing offensive voices. From Christians
picketing Marilyn Manson concerts, to Behemoth
and Pussy Riot being arrested in Russia, the
same dogmatic mindsets seeks to eliminate
speech that goes against the church.
There is a temptation to think that Cancel
Culture is OK because it is not LEGAL censorship,
so that it’s just the free market of ideas
at work. But it isn’t that simple. As said
by Suzanne Nossel, the CEO of Pen America,
one of the leading free expression organizations
in the United States,
If after all of this, you still think that,
although you believe in free speech, but that
some things are different, and don’t deserve
to be heard, you might be surprised as to
who agrees with you:
See you next time.
