Media Backlash when the Manics Visited Cuba

[strongerthanmensa]

It's that they were so politically outspoken, yet still idealistically treated Castro, a dictator, as some sort of socialist god, and Cuba as some sort of socialist utopia. It was just so inconsistent with their generally politically moral status, and taking a trip to Cuba just seemed to almost be a parody of their socialist ideals.

Comparing Clinton to Castro is a bit silly. Castro is a dictator, and has oppressed his own people. The Manics' idolisation of Castro was more akin to George Galloway's rants against "murderers" like Blair and Bush, and then going off to shake Saddam Hussein's hand

[Bryter Layter]

Originally Posted by strongerthanmensa

It was just so inconsistent with their generally politically moral status...

Huh? You do realize you're referring to a band that at one time emblazoned their imagery with the hammer and sickle- the symbol of a political regime responsible for some of the most hideous violations against humanity in history? Surely you must be joking!

As for Castro, well, I'm kind of undecided about him. Is he a dictator? Absolutely! Did he liberate Cuba from American oppression? Of course! There's a bit of a duality where that man is concerned. Some despise him, others adore him. I'm not sure exactly which side is telling the truth in regards to how beneficial he has been for Cuba. However I do know that Cubans are probably per capita the most educated people in the Caribbean - everyone regardless of social standing or financial background, can attend university. They also have a universal health care system which I think is fair to assume they would not have if the communists had not seized power.

Despite their poor economy (largely due to the American trade embargo with them) and virtually living in a prison, they still have priveledges afforded to them that not even the US affords it's citizens.

[The Gutless Wonder]

The meeting with Castro hadn't been their intention when they set out there. He just sort of, turned up!

[Dancing Kirby]

There was an NME souveneir special, MTV showed highlights, a Channel 4 special was shown, and I remember watching the presenter on Sky News saying 'good on the Manics' when it was covered on there.

If Know Your Enemy hadn't been widely perceived to be utter shit by critics, then I doubt there'd have been any backlash.

[the_soft_machine]

Originally Posted by The Gutless Wonder

The meeting with Castro hadn't been their intention when they set out there. He just sort of, turned up!

Castro: "Can you sign my gatefeold vinyl copy of GT? Oh, and can you play Sleepflowers too, i love that."

[strongerthanmensa]

Originally Posted by TheGreatPretender

Huh? You do realize you're referring to a band that at one time emblazoned their imagery with the hammer and sickle- the symbol of a political regime responsible for some of the most hideous violations against humanity in history? Surely you must be joking!

True, but it's one thing to say that communism as an ideal is noble, it's another thing to actually go to Cuba and meet Castro, a real-life dictator with a very poor human rights record. I think it just felt like it was glossing over Castro's actual profile, in favour of simply indulging a "They don't like America, so they're great" sentiment.

[Mary Chain]

It's not really different to Noel Gallagher meeting Tony Blair or Bono meeting George Bush, both with very poor human rights records of their own. The major difference is that the Manics had no idea Castro was going to turn up!

It's quite hypocritical to say that playing a gig in Cuba equals endorsing Castro's profile and promoting communism etc. when that could just as easily apply to any other country's leader and political system.

[The Gutless Wonder]

Originally Posted by the_soft_machine

Castro: "Can you sign my gatefeold vinyl copy of GT? Oh, and can you play Sleepflowers too, i love that."

He! He! They would've had to have played Sleepflower then!

[strongerthanmensa]

Originally Posted by harrijack

It's not really different to Noel Gallagher meeting Tony Blair or Bono meeting George Bush, both with very poor human rights records of their own. The major difference is that the Manics had no idea Castro was going to turn up!

It's quite hypocritical to say that playing a gig in Cuba equals endorsing Castro's profile and promoting communism etc. when that could just as easily apply to any other country's leader and political system.

It's extremely different. I simply don't buy the whole Blair/Bush = murderers/dictators etc, because they weren't. What they did was enter into an ill-judged war. That's not on the same lines as an oppressive dictator.

Also, as for having no idea he was going to turn up, they did meet him before/after the gig, didn't they? And they've always been unashamedly reverent of Castro, when, in terms of the band being liberals and y'know, being supporters of human rights, it doesn't really add up.

Not being rude, but I don't really understand your last paragraph, could you explain what you mean?

Originally Posted by Gutless Wonder

He! He! They would've had to have played Sleepflower then!

They played Baby Elian because he asked them to! They weren't gonna play it, they played it as a response to his request! The "you don't just sit in a rocking chair when you've built a revolution" bit, to a beaming Castro, was kind of cringeworthy.

[Son of Stopped]

Originally Posted by strongerthanmensa

The "you don't just sit in a rocking chair when you've built a revolution" bit, to a beaming Castro, was kind of cringeworthy.

And luckily James didn't sing the lyric from the demo I've just made up?
"Just 'cos you have hairs on your face/doesn't mean you can talk like a cunt?" (Joke! I agree with your post!)

[The Gutless Wonder]

No more cringeworthy than Noel going to No 10!

[deadmartyr]

Originally Posted by The Gutless Wonder

He! He! They would've had to have played Sleepflower then!

Castro: "Sleepflower!"

James: "F*ck off!"

[Mary Chain]

Originally Posted by strongerthanmensa

It's extremely different. I simply don't buy the whole Blair/Bush = murderers/dictators etc, because they weren't. What they did was enter into an ill-judged war. That's not on the same lines as an oppressive dictator.

Also, as for having no idea he was going to turn up, they did meet him before/after the gig, didn't they? And they've always been unashamedly reverent of Castro, when, in terms of the band being liberals and y'know, being supporters of human rights, it doesn't really add up.

Not being rude, but I don't really understand your last paragraph, could you explain what you mean?

It's not extremely different at all. Castro is only viewed as a murderer because his government isn't democratic. The killing of civillians in other countries in a war that should never have happened is still murder, but people seem to consider it different because it's been carried-out by democratic nations.

As for having no idea he was going to turn up, have you watched the Louder Than War DVD? James and Nicky's reaction upon walking into him in the venue should be proof enough. They looked shocked beyond belief. They also turned down dinner with him after the show (well, apparently Sean wanted to go but Nicky said it would be too weird). That doesn't seem to me like a well-rehearsed plan to fraternize with a communist politican as you seem to be implying.

In my last paragraph I was simply echoing what James said himself at the time*. Cuba isn't the perfect political agenda (the Manics never said it was even when they played there), but to say that playing a gig in a country endorses it's political system and leader is a bit melodramatic. Obviously they should never have played that Russian festival then, or the US, or Thailand, or Italy.

*http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...ub-693866.html

Originally Posted by deadmartyr

Castro: "Sleepflower!"

James: "F*ck off!"

That part was edited out of the DVD...

[Donkey]

Originally Posted by harrijack

It's not extremely different at all. Castro is only viewed as a murderer because his government isn't democratic. The killing of civillians in other countries in a war that should never have happened is still murder, but people seem to consider it different because it's been carried-out by democratic nations.

This is a very simple and half-blind view but it is still not defending Castro at all

[Mary Chain]

Originally Posted by Donkey

This is a very simple and half-blind view but it is still not defending Castro at all

I'm not trying to defend Castro. There are a lot of aspects of his regime that cannot be defended. I just don't buy the view that every other leader is morally superior.