German anti-tank weapons and stinger missiles are on their way to the Ukrainian forces. (So, Germany clearly picked a side in this war.)Germany isn't at war. And as we saw with internment camps in the US, "it was wartime" is a lame-*** excuse. I mean, if one actually cheers that kind of thing then really one can't have much of an objection to authoritarianism.
Germany still is not at war. The US was threatened with nuclear strikes throughout the Cold War. And besides, the US was at war with North Vietnam from 1965-1973. Would the US have been totally within "right" to jail all anti-war activists and to require celebrities to denounce Hanoi? Of course not, and you know it.German anti-tank weapons and stinger missiles are on their way to the Ukrainian forces. (So, Germany clearly picked a side in this war.)
Putin has made it clear that countries that interfere in his invasion and aid the defenders will face the consequences.
He went so far as even threatening them with nuclear strikes.
So if they could have distanced themselves, but still refused, they were fair game. It's not totally different, either. It's about the power of the state in any case.(The japanese internment camps are totally different. These japanese americans could not escape internment by distancing themselves from Hirohito.)
No, it hasn't. You didn't get pages of 100% confirmation and so now it's been "destroyed". Have it closed if you want.FrankinUsa said:This thread has completely gone away from the original question or thought.
I am going to reach out to the moderators right now to shut this down. I just have to figure out the way to talk to the moderatorsGermany still is not at war. The US was threatened with nuclear strikes throughout the Cold War. And besides, the US was at war with North Vietnam from 1965-1973. Would the US have been totally within "right" to jail all anti-war activists and to require celebrities to denounce Hanoi?
So if they could have distanced themselves, but still refused, they were fair game. It's not totally different, either. It's about the power of the state in any case.
No, it hasn't. You didn't get pages of 100% confirmation and so now it's been "destroyed". Have it closed if you want.
I don't know if the moderators always obey such requests. The discussion has clearly remained relevant to classical music, at least for the last little bit, i.e., should a classical conductor be forced to make a statement or lose his job, and, I dare say, at least somewhat relevant to the original post.To the moderators;
I've been searching the blog to send a message to moderators. I am the OP. I would like to stop this thread.
Thank you for some direction.It's true that the thread has deviated from the OP, but that is not always a problem. What is a problem is the incidence of political posts that do not focus on classical music. We have repeatedly asked members to refrain from moving away from classical music and into the domain of pure politics.
If you feel that this issue cannot be discussed without some discussion of purely political issues, we ask that you simply do not post here.
Classical music questions the thread asks are:
Do classical music artists have protection against being involved in political actions or is there a point of responsibility?
Does any event or policy rises to such a high level or is so egregious that it has significant world wide major implications such that classical music artists could be negatively affected by a policy? Are there examples of classical music artistry being suppressed throughout the world where it has become an issue that has developed "critical mass?"
Do you wish to throw out all Gergiev recordings or do you think it's reasonable to do so?
I don't know what an earth your points about Polanski and Rowling have to do with this as they are irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't take much brain power to work out that hurting important people with influence in Russia may wake people up to the fact that the country is a pariah state, isolated, economically and in other ways, and Actually make them think of getting rid of PutinHurting Gergiev doesn't hurt Putin in the least. The larger targets in the case of Polanski and Rowling could be "sexual violence" and "the patriarchal construct" respectively. No difference. Although Polanski was never really ostracized or "cancelled".
I think you miss the pointYou can weed out who you like. This is a matter of personal conscience. You can weed out any artist you like if their political views / lifestyle is offensive to you. Your privilege. Just don't try and dictate to others what they should do to be 'consistent'.
Yes. And the performer has a right to decide how to respond.Here's another question that troubles me a little:
Forget Gergiev-Putin. Does a politician have a right to demand that a performer make any specific political statement?
Frankly that is a pretty thoughtless suggestion. As someone who is in his mid 70s and is completely untrained as a fighting man it is guaranteed that I would do more harm than good by volunteering. As Mr Wallace said you should only volunteer for something like this if you are properly trained as a military man. I wouldn't volunteer to play the violin in an orchestra because I can't play the violin. I wouldn't volunteer for combat because I can't shoot a gun. Quite simple. Maybe if I was a Ukrainian in Ukraine it might be different.A final thought or question: how many of those who feel so passionately about the Russian invasion of Ukraine have considered volunteering for the foreign legion that was announced? ' "This will be the key evidence of your support for our country," Zelenskiy said...'
I would imagine it would have more of an effect than throwing away a CD.