Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MaryJanes2ndLastDance

Did anyone read 33 1/3 Southern Accents? What did you think?

Recommended Posts

So far, the best 33 1/3 book I've read is Pixies Doolittle and in my opinion could be the template for this series. It has interesting interviews with most of the band, it primarily focuses on the conception of the album and goes in-depth on each track. And then it ends. It's perfect. The only thing I could've had more from is just an even longer book! 
 
I was hoping Southern Accents would be roughly the same in nature and believed it was at first. Washburn is a good writer and his being a fan of the band comes through and it's an interesting idea to write about a failed concept record that isn't a classic, like FMF or DTT or to some ears, WF. 
 
The book's best moments in my opinion are when it focuses on the songs and the Mike and Benmont interviews, the whole thing could've just been that or at least 90%, it's a shame there isn't more from the 88 keys man and Mike. 
 
The problem is the author focuses on race much too long. I respect Washburn's discussion of his past, and how he felt about certain superficial elements of the Confederacy and growing up in the South. I also like how he notes his respect for Tom after chiding the confederate flag from the stage and his later apology for using it.
 
But much like how he and others (including myself) look at Southern Accents and think about what it could've been instead of what it is, I feel the same way about this book, thinking it a shame more time wasn't spent on the music and songwriting process than on Washburn's relationship to the past and what it means in relation to Tom's goal for the album and the actual record itself.
 
I think I understand why he took this approach, as what's the point of art if not to move people and clearly discussing the album has given him an opportunity to clarify and perhaps expunge his own feelings of the south but this didn't interest me even where in some areas I agree; it is tasteless, hell worse than tasteless, it's downright wrong to tour with a plantation stage set and to celebrate the confederate flag to one degree or another and risk blurring the line between Tom playing a character on stage and in song and the musician himself.
 
 Having not watched Pack up the Plantation nor seen shows from that tour (aside from It Ain't Nothin' To Me) I don't know what else to say about that.
 
When I was a little boy I never understood why the losing side of the civil war kept the flag.
 
Then I just accepted it and didn't really consider it the way I figure most people don't think about it. It became a part of the south and nothing of interest to me.
 
But I also understand how the band went with the flag as some in the South do view it differently, they don't think of it as slavery but as their own freedom and heritage; maybe it's a case where a symbol's meaning can change over time.
 
I think I understand (but I could be wrong) to them, it was something they grew up with the way many of us do with symbols we don't understand; it was years before I learned Nike was a Greek Goddess (and I had to look her up again just now to remind myself since I thought she was Roman) and not just the name of a shoe company; symbols and their meanings change over time or are forgotten, so I get why Tom used the imagery without thinking beyond a simple connection to the idea of the South.
 
My other main contention is Washburn's point that the black perspective isn't represented on the record.
 
1) It's almost a no-win situation.
 
If Tom decided to write a song about segregation or slavery or racism or whatever, from a white observer or black p.o.v., unless he was truly inspired it could come across as pandering and be a weak song since the primary motviation wasn't writing a good tune but making a political point.
 
My understanding is Tom sat down with a guitar or by the piano and began playing and songs would emerge and he didn't stop to question why or how but was grateful he could do it.
 
 If such a song came to him about a black man (or woman) or about racism I'm sure he'd have given it a go, maybe he even did and the tune ended up on the studio floor, maybe it didn't. But my understanding is he wrote the songs and then figured out how they fit (or didn't) on an album.
 
So maybe he didn't have a song on this subject or from the black perspective.
 
And even if he had written such a tune, years later he'd most likely be criticized for daring to do so as a white man or for not truly digging deep enough into the black experience.
 
 In other words, there'd be no appeasing criticism of the record in this area.
 
2) Tom isn't obligated to write about the black man or woman's experience. Why would he be even if the record is about the South? 
 
 
The South isn't just about slavery or its past and having grown up there and found success on the west coast, perhaps Tom's focus were on other areas not touching on its shameful disgusting past.
 
That Washburn focused on this is his call but a little bit goes a long way and too much for my taste. I get it and I think the point comes across that no one in the band is racist and truly no harm was meant and beyond that, why keep hammering the point? 
 
 Heck, Tom even chastised the crowd for the adoration of the flag from the stage at one point. And later apologized for its use.
 
At points book became less about the album and more about the issue of racism, it felt like a bait-and-switch.
 
Overall, it's disappointing.
 
Still, I'm glad the book was written and did enjoy the parts that covered the music and can respect Washburn for being open about his past.
 
 Some other points:
 
What I found interesting is how Benmont's take of his own band seemed to match mine to a degree, when on page 17 he says:  "The band has always been up and down, it's never been a band that does a consistently great record after great record." While not quite my thought that each album has a really good e.p. underneath the weaker tracks, it's close enough, well...in my opinion anyway : )
 
While I didn't expect Washburn to offer a defense or even like the song, I never knew so many people don't care for It Ain't Nothing To Me. I still say it's one of Tom's best songs, it's not just catchy but a lot of fun with a unique structure he never repeated with that back and forth in the verses.
 
 Washburn notes the power of the chorus but like a lot of people just doesn't care for the tune. But hey! All three other people besides me who like this song still appreciate it!
 
It's ironic that the two biggest cited sources for the disruption of the record were cocaine and Dave Stewart and yet without the latter the band would'nt have written perhaps it's strangest greatest hit, Don't Come Around Here No More. 
 
And maybe too much blame is laid upon Mr. Stewart when cocaine, wild expectations and a demo that couldn't be equaled were more than enough to derail the concept.
 
The parts where Washburn discusses the transition to being an LA band is interesting.
 
I don't really care one way or the other because I more thought of them as this weird little classic rock band that's a bit stranger than they seem on first listen.
 
 But I think it's an overall interesting observation, maybe he's right and on some level Tom had to formally draw a line between their southern Florida beginnings and where their careers really took off. 
 
He might be onto something that Southern Accents certainly could've been the catalyst for Tom embracing/promoting them as an LA band from that point forward. I'll leave this for more devoted listeners than me to discuss.
 
To sum it up, the book's a well written letdown, especially after some of Washburn's interesting promotional interviews. Maybe it was naive of me to think more would be on Mike and Benmont and song discussions and less on race. 
 
It's also a bit off putting since this has come out after Tom's death and he can't defend himself though to be fair Washburn was going to interview him.
 
If future books come out about the band I hope they focus more on the music and less on Tom (or other member's bios) and more on the playing in studio and on stage.
 
I still rank Zollo's Conversations with Petty as the best book to date on the man and his band but it's good this book is out there.
 
What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rereading this now I can see how the song Rebels could be an entry point for discussion of race, as the title itself evokes the South's rebellion and the overall bitter, past-his-prime? vibe of the song's subject. From that perspective, much like I consider the book a "bait-and-switch" I could see how someone could view it the same with the first track on this record.

But I still think my points about potential pandering etc. etc. above are valid.

Heck, the way the album turned out, the cover and title itself feels like a bait-and-switch!

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have the "Dusty in Memphis" book, which I got because it was written by Warren Zanes.  I saw the "Southern Accents" one on the shelf at a record store recently along with several others in the series.  I'm skipping it just based on some reviews and I'm not really too interested in reading about the Rebel flag controversy again.  Tom excised that little mistake and rightfully so.  As far as I'm concerned that flag needs to be put away for good.  By everyone.

As to the "Southern Accents" album, it's never been a favorite of mine.  In fact, I never owned it until about 20 years after it came out.  I like a couple of the songs a lot, but there are a number that I don't really care for.  I don't rate this album high in Tom's catalog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Big Blue Sky said:

Yeah... Seems a missed opportunity.

 

2 hours ago, TomFest said:

I'm skipping it just based on some reviews and I'm not really too interested in reading about the Rebel flag controversy again. 

  I think he really needed to get a few things off his chest about the flag/south/racism and in relation to his experiences growing up in the South, which would've been all right if it had been counterbalanced with more writing on the album and more of the interviews with Benmont and Mike. Especially the former in my opinion. The writer was clearly a fan of the band and as such, it's a bit disappointing he went down the avenues he did when others would've been (in my opinion) more interesting. Oh well. I'd give his take on a different TPATH album another go were he to write one.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

No doubt It Ain't Nothin' To Me is one of your favorites...I mean, how could it not be?

LOL, well I won't say the album "ain't nothing to me", but yeah - that song is in the "not one of my favorites" group.  Really, there's just a negative vibe for me on that whole record.  Maybe something to do with the broken hand during the recording, but the entire time frame for me kicks off a big dormant period of Tom's career.  He takes off with Bob for a couple of years, and then comes the "Let Me Up" album - which is also NOT highly ranked in Tom's body of work. Somewhere in there, some asshole tried to kill him by burning his house down.  Again, just my $.02, but I'll call that whole run Tom's "lost weekend".  The Wilbury's experience snapped him out of it, and arguably his best work was still to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TomFest said:

that song is in the "not one of my favorites" group.

Ha ha, yeah I'm in the minority on that one.

4 hours ago, TomFest said:

but the entire time frame for me kicks off a big dormant period of Tom's career.  He takes off with Bob for a couple of years, and then comes the "Let Me Up" album - which is also NOT highly ranked in Tom's body of work. Somewhere in there, some asshole tried to kill him by burning his house down.  Again, just my $.02, but I'll call that whole run Tom's "lost weekend".  The Wilbury's experience snapped him out of it, and arguably his best work was still to come.

I think with some exception this is a pretty common take. While those albums have some bright spots (and I do prefer LMU to SA) I agree that some of his best work was yet to come. For me, and this again could be a minority opinion, I think a mix of Wildflowers and Echo thru Last DJ was another glum period, picking up again with Mudcrutch and peaking with Hypnotic Eye which I have to say, for a last album it's a definite high to go out on.

Someone should write a "...and the Heartbreakers" book, and get their perception of what it was like being in the band. Just title it that..."...AND THE HEARTBREAKERS." I think it would be a good companion to CONVERSATIONS and PETTY: The Biography.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, yes, mostly* agree with above points. Certainly, watching doco there's a sense along the way of so many situations where, if they were another band, it would be "... so, they broke up". 

(*As dual fan of both Bob & Heartbreakers, I consider them touring with Dylan to be a truly fruitful phase & a high point. No pun intended:lol:.) Other peaks at that time? Gotta nominate both Farm Aid concerts, surely! Especially contrast between slightly wobbly Live Aid at start of tour & how sharp & tight they are for Farm Aid just a couple of months later. They seem so genuinely thrilled to be playing - look at those grins!

image.jpeg.4de0a2415f9360595300ba0eab749c4e.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me and cousin Mike would always try to guess what cover song they were going to play.  I saw a lot of Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers shows with Mike.  We loved when they covered the Stones, and this is the Heartbreakers covering the Stones covering Chuck Berry.  Triple play.  I didn't mean to suggest that there was no magic in those years of the 80's.  There were moments of brilliance for sure.  I saw that tour with Dylan and enjoyed it immensely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, guess it's all relative - even their lows were still pretty high. Except that arson attack, which is lowest of low by anyone's standards. Doesn't he even say (in documentary) something about how everyone was struggling in different ways during the 84-85 time off & when recording.... How when he hears some songs from S A he still tastes the cocaine in the back of his mouth... Then: "we went back on the road & all that shit went away". :D 

Your Cousin Mike! Co-host in spirit of your Vinyl Sunday!! Concert goer too!!!

YEAH -  "Bye Bye Johnny" !!!! There's more where that came from... on YouTube, if you search "farm aid" they've posted individual performances / songs of 1985 farm aid. There's also some rehearsal footage with Bob Dylan. Earlier today I noticed a post of TPATH whole concert too of 1986, but it seems to be hiding now. If in doubt, 1985 red shirt. 1986 white shirt & black vest. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched "Don't Bring Me Down" also.  Love it.  I was geeking out on Mike's sunburst Telecaster Custom that he's playing in both songs..  I have one and it's probably my #1, but I don't recall ever seeing Mike play one. Mike Campbell, not cousin Mike.  Cousin Mike played bass. Yeah, I still think about him a lot. I'll get back to the rest of his stack of 45's this weekend maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 25, 2019 at 11:22 PM, Big Blue Sky said:

Well, guess it's all relative

Indeed. Some think Echo's the bees knees, others a dreary slog, some prefer the Stan years to Steve's turn, there is a definite wide variety of taste beyond the greatest hits here. I think Hypnotic Eye is their best TPATH album and that came nearly 40 years in their career.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read it.

1. I do think it was an interesting album choice to tackle. It makes sense, as SA is a conflicted, scattered album with a compelling backdrop/concept. There is potentially a lot to angles and ideas to dive into and parse out. And it's not an initial "obvious choice", like DTT or FMF. It would be like tackling a 33/3 book on Echo or Mojo or something...

2. I agree that that author brings too much of his own history, upbringing, and experience with the south into the book. He spends a lot of time discussing the over- saturated use of the rebel flag in the SA marketing and subsequent tour & merchandising. He claims that the album only tells ONE SIDE of the southern story: Tom's side. AKA the white side. And that he didn't attempt to tell the black perspective or story of the south.* Or that he wasn't able to, or wasn't aware of it, etc.

He ultimately calls the album a failed attempt. Barely a concept record. Mixed and messed when Dave Stewart came into the picture. Ben and Mike call it a missed opportunity, unfocused, the one that got away...

3. I think the most fascinated aspect about the SA years, as touched upon here, is  the total public perception transformation that Tom underwent between 1985 to 1989. Think about it. If 1985 gave us the southern Tom Petty. When the concept album and idea of SA "failed", or fell flat, what happened? In just a few short years, Tom shed the southern image (characterization) and somehow became the quintessential California dude by the time Full Moon Fever came out! Look at the music video for Free Fallin. Total feel good-laid back California vibes, which seemed to fit him perfectly this time. Maybe the beginning of the mellow, easy-going rocker image that Tom seemed to show from this point forward....

Southern Gentlemen or California dude? (or both in equal measure?)

Still so fun to debate whether TPATH are a Florida or LA band, of course. Tom says they're LA, although I'm not fully buying it. I think they are southern at heart... Proof to me is when Mudctrutch reunited in 2008. This is Tom going back to his roots, returning to Florida, showing his true self...IMHO...The Mudcrutch detour just felt so right...

 

*For further introspection and study, check out the album "White Mansions", released in 1978. Its a concept album about slavery and the civil war. Various artists, featuring Waylon Jennings, Jessi Colter, Eric Clapton, and several more. The stories/perspectives of 4 characters are woven throughout. Not quite related to Southern Accents, but close. Tom's song Rebels or the title track could fit in with this record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm about to write comes with about 50 pieces of context. Most importantly: imo "race" is meaningless from genetic point of view & it's a social construct. Uh, hello, :rolleyes: since we're all descended end from same starter population, everyone human ever born on planet earth is "mixed race". And so on. 

Isn't it an obvious irony that, for people who use these terms to define people, Tom Petty had already been talking about his Cherokee links in many interviews before mid 1980s. So does the author recognise that complexity - or just define him as classic southern white man, based on his blond hair? 

Love the whole Mudcrutch reboot! They seemed to really enjoy it & the music is fantastic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Big Blue Sky said:

Most importantly: imo "race" is meaningless from genetic point of view & it's a social construct.

I would think it's the opposite right? Race is biology. A Korean man is different from an Irish woman. Pick whatever examples you like.

I think the more important thing is quality of character, how one exercises their free will. Along with that are matters of the soul, both of which I find more interesting than race as a topic. 

While the biological differences exist, that we all share this world and its creatures is what counts and how we treat each other and them, of which, if you haven't gathered, I'm in favor of kindness, generosity, justice tempered with mercy. 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RedfordCowboy said:

3. I think the most fascinated aspect about the SA years, as touched upon here, is  the total public perception transformation that Tom underwent between 1985 to 1989. Think about it.

 I never thought about it before but that's because I really never cared if they're a band from Florida or LA. Why not both? Who cares really? But the point he raised and you emphasized seems valid...interesting even if there was no deliberate attempt on Tom's part, of which, I don't see him caring enough to consciously will such a change in perception, but I could be wrong.

7 hours ago, RedfordCowboy said:

Total feel good-laid back California vibes, which seemed to fit him perfectly this time. Maybe the beginning of the mellow, easy-going rocker image that Tom seemed to show from this point forward....

Yeah, maybe it was the video director's call and somehow that image combined with the mellow song are the result. Certainly it was my perception till I heard his radio interview about him not being laid-back at all. Maybe too, some of it was the genuine happiness he was experiencing after the horror of the arson and the tumultuous (?) years of the band around that time.

7 hours ago, RedfordCowboy said:

Still so fun to debate whether TPATH are a Florida or LA band, of course. Tom says they're LA, although I'm not fully buying it. I think they are southern at heart... Proof to me is when Mudctrutch reunited in 2008. This is Tom going back to his roots, returning to Florida, showing his true self...IMHO...The Mudcrutch detour just felt so right...

Oh. Well, maybe someone else will be along to pick up that particular gauntlet; though I do like your reasoning as to why you think of them as southern. And I agree, Mudcrutch was an incredibly good call on Tom's part.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 4:54 PM, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

Rereading this now I can see how the song Rebels could be an entry point for discussion of race, as the title itself evokes the South's rebellion and the overall bitter, past-his-prime? vibe of the song's subject. From that perspective, much like I consider the book a "bait-and-switch" I could see how someone could view it the same with the first track on this record.

But I still think my points about potential pandering etc. etc. above are valid.

Heck, the way the album turned out, the cover and title itself feels like a bait-and-switch!

cheers

But the thing is, the song isn't about any of that. It's about a drunk loser who wallows in his own self-pity and blames the fact that because he's a Southerner, he's just born to "rebel". It's a great irony that's lost on many. Just like how "Born in the USA" isn't about America being great, but about a Vietnam Vet coming back and finding his life is turned upside down.

There's nothing glamours about "Trailer", "Rebels", "Southern Accents" and "The Best of Everything". All the songs are dower and down. About being a poor misguided white guy in the south clinging onto the bullshit that get's propagated about how "The South Will Rise Again!". It's been over a 150 years and the South still can't get out of their own way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

But the thing is, the song isn't about any of that. It's about a drunk loser who wallows in his own self-pity and blames the fact that because he's a Southerner, he's just born to "rebel". It's a great irony that's lost on many. About being a poor misguided white guy in the south clinging onto the bullshit that get's propagated about how "The South Will Rise Again!". It's been over a 150 years and the South still can't get out of their own way.

I don't think the author missed the point of the song. One could argue the Civil War was really about Federal Government over States' Rights but even so the issue of Slavery was still a part of that as well. Which returns to race.

So, no, I could see why Rebels could be an entry point for the discussion, since even using the Civil War/South Will Rise Again! as a self-satisfied excuse for why his life didn't turn out the way it did goes back to race. 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

I don't think the author missed the point of the song. One could argue the Civil War was really about Federal Government over States' Rights but even so the issue of Slavery was still a part of that as well. Which returns to race.

So, no, I could see why Rebels could be an entry point for the discussion, since even using the Civil War/South Will Rise Again! as a self-satisfied excuse for why his life didn't turn out the way it did goes back to race. 

cheers

No, you can't make an argument about the Civil War being Federal vs. States Rights because it was about slavery. Confederate state constitutions state clearly the idea that slavery is necessary because "Negroes are inferior to whites and thus to be subservient to them". The whole states rights issue is southern revisionist bullshit.

Here's the lyrics to the damn song: Honey don't walk out, I'm too drunk to follow
You know you won't feel this way tomorrow
Well, maybe a little rough around the edges
Or inside a little hollow
I get faced with some things, sometimes
That are so hard to swallow, hey!


I was born a rebel, down in Dixie
On a Sunday mornin'
Yeah with one foot in the grave
And one foot on the pedal, I was born a rebel


She picked me up in the mornin', and she paid all my tickets
Then she screamed in the car
Left me out in the thicket

Well I never woulda' dreamed
That her heart was so wicked
Yeah but I keep comin' back
Cause it's so hard to kick it, hey, hey, hey


(Chorus)

Even before my father's father
They called us all rebels

While they burned our cornfields
And left our cities leveled
I can still feel the eyes of those blue-bellied devils
Yeah, when I'm walking round at night
Through the concrete and metal, hey, hey, hey

Nothing there about race folks. Just a drunk who can't get his shit together and blames it all on the fact that he's just born to be a rebel because of his heritage.

This is my favorite song of all time, and after listening to it a billion times, theirs nothing grand about it besides the sound. That's a dichotomy. The sound is grand and happy while the message itself is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

No, you can't make an argument about the Civil War being Federal vs. States Rights because it was about slavery. Confederate state constitutions state clearly the idea that slavery is necessary because "Negroes are inferior to whites and thus to be subservient to them".

I'm not making that argument. I said, "One could make that argument" because many people have, as to the validity of it, I honestly don't know. I'd like to think the basis of the Civil War was eliminating Slavery but I'm also familiar with how governments screw over their populaces. But to reiterate, I'm not making that argument.

1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

The whole states rights issue is southern revisionist bullshit.

Could very well be. And certainly, slavery couldn't last in this country and Thank God it didn't. And thank those who fought to end it.

 

1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

Nothing there about race folks.

On the one hand you're saying the Civil War was fought over slavery but at the same time you're saying there's nothing to do with race in a song that talks about cornfields burning down..during the civil war! It seems contradictory to me.

1 hour ago, martin03345 said:

This is my favorite song of all time, and after listening to it a billion times, theirs nothing grand about it besides the sound. That's a dichotomy. The sound is grand and happy while the message itself is not.

I agree about the message in contrast with the music. However you want to interpret the song is fine, and certainly if this is your favorite TPATH tune I could see why you feel the way you do about it. But I can see someone reading those lines: 

Even before my father's father
They called us all rebels

While they burned our cornfields
And left our cities leveled
I can still feel the eyes of those blue-bellied devils

...and returning to the Civil War and the issue of Slavery and thus race. I'm not saying you have to view the song that way but I can see why the author (or others) did or do.

I should also point out that I don't really have a horse in this race, I enjoy exploring the different interpretations or what I perceive them to be in the book and with the meaning of the album or in this case, the song Rebels. But please don't confuse examining these different points of view with any particular endorsement of them, that's not my intent.

What I was going for was understanding (maybe) how or why from the first track of the record there was a way into the race discussion for Washburne. Pure supposition on my part but I think it's interesting.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

I'm not making that argument. I said, "One could make that argument" because many people have, as to the validity of it, I honestly don't know. I'd like to think the basis of the Civil War was eliminating Slavery but I'm also familiar with how governments screw over their populaces. But to reiterate, I'm not making that argument.

Could very well be. And certainly, slavery couldn't last in this country and Thank God it didn't. And thank those who fought to end it.

 

On the one hand you're saying the Civil War was fought over slavery but at the same time you're saying there's nothing to do with race in a song that talks about cornfields burning down..during the civil war! It seems contradictory to me.

I agree about the message in contrast with the music. However you want to interpret the song is fine, and certainly if this is your favorite TPATH tune I could see why you feel the way you do about it. But I can see someone reading those lines: 

Even before my father's father
They called us all rebels

While they burned our cornfields
And left our cities leveled
I can still feel the eyes of those blue-bellied devils

...and returning to the Civil War and the issue of Slavery and thus race. I'm not saying you have to view the song that way but I can see why the author (or others) did or do.

I should also point out that I don't really have a horse in this race, I enjoy exploring the different interpretations or what I perceive them to be in the book and with the meaning of the album or in this case, the song Rebels. But please don't confuse examining these different points of view with any particular endorsement of them, that's not my intent.

What I was going for was understanding (maybe) how or why from the first track of the record there was a way into the race discussion for Washburne. Pure supposition on my part but I think it's interesting.

cheers

1. By putting forth the argument, you're validating it when it does not deserve any validation. You may not have have been making that argument, but the fact you even brought it up deserves to be struck down immediately. Ignorance of American history is no excuse for defending the South's misguided cause. The Federal government during the Antebellum time period was as weak as ever in the period of US history with the federal government consistently bending over backwards to appease the South when they were in the minority,. President James Buchanan when the war broke out derided secession as illegal but thought the government had no power to do anything against it. If any state where to even think of seceding today, any US president would make sure the army would go down there to restore order and hang the traitors from the highest tree in the land like Andrew Jackson threatened early secessionists back in the 1830s. This countries union is perpetual: once you're in, you're in for life. Secession is illegal and is treason.

2. It's not contradictory at all. That last verse is in reference to Sherman's march to Georgia where he went and scorched the earth and left nothing of use for the South. It has to deal with the war yes, but not race as a whole. It has to deal with the idea that if it weren't for those damn Yankees, we'd still have our way of life. If it weren't for the North at the end of the war totally destroying the South, they'd still have something left and after the war, they had nothing left. After the war and Reconstruction, the South still hasn't fully recovered from the devastation wrought on their land. Though slavery was the crux of the war, in this song, Tom's not trying to get at that. He's not that deep in his lyrics folks. (See "JeffersoJericho Blues" as an example").

3. And again, just because you have a certain interpretation of things, doesn't mean it's equally acceptable. If it comes from ignorance then your ignorance hinders your ability to understand because you don't have the necessary information to interpret the subject matter. I'm not saying these are your own ideas and interpretations, but if you put them out there, expect people who have a little foresight to shoot them down because they're filled with nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, martin03345 said:

the Civil War being Federal vs. States Rights because it was about slavery. Confederate state constitutions state clearly the idea that slavery is necessary because "Negroes are inferior to whites and thus to be subservient to them". The whole states rights issue is southern revisionist bullshit.

I actually spoke to an amateur Civil War historian just a few minutes ago and came on to say that yes, I agree with you on this point; southern revisionist bullshit.

 

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...