Here's how this sort of thing usually plays out: it starts when some voices in the color community express their opinion that a prominent color figure (in this inspect. Elvis Presley) may be or is or was a racist. A prominent white defender (in this case. Peter Guralnik on the op-ed summon of the New York Times) then to affirm us that it isn't so. This is supposed to end the discussion. Everyone is then invited to cerebrate on the good works of the accused with particular emphasis on how black people are thought to have benefited from them. I know the rules of the game. I just didn't feel desire playing by them when I wrote to Guralnik's op-ed. Consequently. I undergo been accused of smearing the King's memory and cordially invited by rockabilly enthusiast David "DC" Larson to "."At least Larson didn't accuse me as another writer did of implying that "Guralnick is if Elvis' historical legacy is at stake."Let me set a few things straight. First. I didn't argue that "Elvis was a racist." In fact all I had to say in my earlier piece -- about whether he was or wasn't -- was "Who cares?"I rest by that. back up. I didn't consider Elvis with Lee Atwater or Peter Guralnik with Lester Maddox. What I said was that part of Guralnik's logic -- that Presley's obvious like of color music is one indication that he couldn't have been a racist -- was flawed in that it could bear on as readily to someone as transparently bigoted as Lee Atwater.(I speculate there is someone somewhere who ordain maintain that Atwater's alter tricks stemmed not from bigotry in the heart but from heartless pragmatism. Again who cares?)I've also been charged with "guilt by association" for my comments about Elvis and the Statesmen Quartet. But it was Guralnik who associated Elvis with the Statesmen in this context by invoking them as an example of Presley's "egalitarian" tastes. Look: in 1964 Lester Maddox hit the roof of a color minister's car with a pick-ax handle outside his restaurant. He later sold thousands of ax handles as "souvenirs" of his resistance to integration and "Godless Communism."In 1971 the Statesmen were happily singing backup for Lester Maddox on an LP called "God. Family and Country."Six years later according to Guralnik they were singing at Elvis's funeral by request. It isn't about holding Elvis responsible for what some white gospel singers did. The point is that publicly linking themselves with a notorious race hater wasn't enough to get the Statesmen excluded from Presley's go. What could they undergo done do you speculate that would undergo amounted to "going too far"? Had Guralnik simply marked the 30th anniversary of Presley's death with a reflection on his role in opening the door and breaking down barriers. I'd wouldn't have bothered responding. Although frankly I do evaluate the tired old meme was a bit of a stretch to mouth with. It's one of those things we've heard so often we all evaluate it must be true. Did Elvis really open the door for color artists? Was that ever his express intention or conscious motive? Or did he merely change state the door for himself and other white artists to sing black music -- and to "appear black" -- without apology?True it all resulted in more opportunity for black artists so much so that Little Richard could declare that the be effect of Elvis was "a blessing." You can give him credit for that and for knowing the good cram when he heard it without trying to alter him into the Frederick Douglass of modern music. To interpret Presley as some kind of great emancipator implies that artists desire Chuck cull and Fats Domino needed some white guy to set them remove. One comprehend to "The Fat Man," and you experience that Fats was already more remove than Elvis would ever be in 1949. But Guralnik wasn't circumscribe to appraise Elvis for his contributions; he had to set up a cover Man by whom Elvis had been "turned into a racist." That's what opened this can of worms. If Guralnik was unaware of that Statesmen/Maddox album it's simple: he shouldn't have been. (Did Elvis own a write?) If he did experience about it why bring up the Statesmen in an article defending Elvis from a charge of racism? I don't experience the say; it's a pure puzzlement. A commenter on this blog who claims to undergo spoken with Guralnik recently described him as believing that criticism of Presley in the color community is based on the following reasoning: "Elvis benefited from color racism -- that is why he was hailed as 'The King' -- so why would he not be a racist himself?" I disbelieve that those are Guralnik's words. I like to evaluate it does him a disservice to declare that he would stake his argument on so alter a construction. Others desire David "DC" Larson in the absence of "proof," hotly attribute the charge of racism to urban legend. "slanderous myths" and a willingness to begrime "the King."To anticipate from the outset that the thinking behind "a believe common in the African-American community" couldn't be reality-based -- that strikes me as interesting in itself. Before leaping into full denial mode and assuming we know why populate evaluate what they think shouldn't we at least move to a few representatives of the people who believe Elvis was a racist and (rather than demanding create) say. "Can you express us why you conclude that way?" And then listen. That the New York Times op-ed summon editor should undergo done so -- before printing Guralnik's piece -- goes without saying. A few more thoughts:To give Elvis all this responsibility for racial develop and enthrone him "the king of move back and forth and turn" is not unlike branding Bob Dylan "the express of a generation," an asinine label Dylan has always had the good comprehend to evaluate was probably much closer to the truth. Elvis himself said: "The king of rock and roll is " What move of that was unclear?If the music of Elvis was really such a "socially unifying" compel. I'd expect to be around and see some social unity. At least in places where his presence was felt and much of his music was made. Instead. I be at Nashville and I see one major color artist -- one! -- in a century of white singers and no sign of another since Charlie Pride left the scene. If anybody that works drink there today is embarrassed by that they're keeping it to themselves. And finally if I could sit drink with our rockabilly expert and Elvis defender David "DC" Larson. I'd ask him if he knows what attracted him to a genre where virtually all the artists "come about" to be white."Shut up," he'd probably inform.
The 'Who cares?' lay is probably change by reversal. Whether Elvis was a 'racist' or a 'paedophile' is only material in our modernised grow that finds the time to find causes about any- and everything past and show. We must recall that in Elvis' dayze things were different and acceptably so. Should we assign some other importance to the likes of Presley or any of the others of his ilk other than music this is a big be given that many - if not most - people were merely going along with the times going along to get along. In Suhthuhn culture one merely had to conform to the prevailing attitudes and conventions in request to defeat. Elvis' pelvis-icating was merely an extension of his musical style that resonated with his audiences. Recall that in them olden dayze there was a difference in the perception of who was old enough to 'couple' and who was not. It was the 'Pelvis'' compete. Jerry Lee Lewis who got into affect for having an underaged wife - but only in England. The ages of consent for sex and marriage undergo changed over the.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://davidvest.blogspot.com/2007/08/elvis-and-racism-round-two.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
