Lyrics (Over)Analysis – Time is Running Out by Muse

My opinion with lyrics is that the interpretation of lyrics by the listener is just as important as the interpretation of lyrics by the songwriter itself. I said this in a previous analysis of songs but this will be the first time that point will be really relevant.

My interpretation of this song is that it is an anti-abortion song from the prospective of the foetus. Now you may go on and tell me that Matt Bellamy said that this song is about relationship break down or whatever other meanings that he has conjured up. However my reply is that I know the meaning of Matt Bellamy songs more than he does :)

(By the way, don’t try to extrapolate my personal opinion on abortion by these interpretation. My interpretation of the lyrics of the song is completely irrelevant to my personal opinion about abortion.)

So let’s start with the lyrics.

I think I'm drowning
asphyxiated
I wanna break this spell
that you've created

So the starts sets up that this foetus is about to die. He is drowning and is running out of air. This is because the foetus is about to be aborted. The foetus wants to break the maternal bonds (I wanna break this spell) between mother and child. The mother is going to abort the foetus and the foetus doesn’t want to have this love for the mother due to the betrayal.

you're something beautiful
a contradiction

However the foetus still believes that the mother is beautiful but recognises the contradiction of that. The mother is going to kill the foetus but the foetus still loves the mother because you can't break the spell.

I wanna play the game
I want the friction
The foetus now saying he wants to play the game of life. The foetus wants any problems and conflict that comes with that life (friction). This is responding to points by pro-choice groups that abortion should be ok to avoid the social problems of having a pregnancy in undesirable social situations.

you will be the death of me
you will be the death of me

This is self evident that the mother will be the death of the foetus.

bury it
I won't let you bury it
I won't let you smother it
I won't let you murder it
Again, this is also about how the mother will be the death of the foetus. However I do like the language being used such as “smother” which paints a picture of mother smothering their baby to death. The foetus obviously believes that is the same moral equivalence as aborting a foetus. Also “won’t let you bury it” can also means that the foetus won’t let the mother forget what she has done. She can’t bury her sins and say that she didn’t really kill anyone.

our time is running out
our time is running out
you can't push it underground
you can't stop it screaming out

The line saying that the foetus time together with mother is running out. This is followed by the similar theme that you can’t just try to rationalise it away that this isn’t really murder or isn’t really killing, that you can’t stop the foetus screaming out. Although the foetus doesn’t literally scream out, it is a metaphorical way of saying that this is a living life that feels pain you are killing.

I wanted freedom
bound and restricted
I tried to give you up
but I'm addicted
This is a bit of repetition from the first verse. The foetus wants to live life but is helpless about its situation as it is bound and restricted inside the womb. The foetus has no choice in the matter. The foetus can’t simply break the dependency between the foetus and the mother because the foetus is reliant on the mother to survive.

now that you know I'm trapped sense of elation
you'd never dream of
breaking this fixation
The foetus is now saying that the mother knows that the foetus is trap and is under her mercy. She feels elated about having this control over reproduction.
However she will never break the bonds between mother and child.

I’m going to skip the next couple of section because there are repetition and I’ll just go to the last section of the song.

you will suck the life out of me

One of the methods of abortion is to literally suck the foetus out of the womb using the manual vacuum aspiration or electric vacuum aspiration technique.

That line refers to that technique.

bury it
I won't let you bury it
I won't let you smother it
I won't let you murder it

our time is running out
our time is running out
you can't push it underground
you can't stop it screaming out
how did it come to this?
ooooohh

The song finishes off repeating the chorus. The chorus deals with the theme that the mother can’t hide that this is murder. The foetus is telling the mother that you can rationalise it away but you can never hide away from it. Also that the mother can never deny and break the maternal connection between mother and child because it is part of who we are (there is evidence that there are hormonal connection between mother and child). This can lead to issues such as post-abortion syndrome where the mother who believes that abortion is murder is killing a life end up feeling depress and guilty about their actions.

The song ends off with the line that “how did it come to this”
This is the foetus saying that they never done anything to the mother. The foetus is asking how the relationship between the mother and the foetus did broke down to the extent that the mother wants to abort the foetus. The foetus is confused by the mother’s behaviour and points out the pointlessness of it.

So that’s my interpretation of the song. Matt Bellamy wrote a brilliant and creative anti-abortion song (who would have thought of writing an abortion song from the prospective of the foetus. That's just awesomely creative)  without even realising it.

Lyrics (Over)Analysis – One by U2

This song by U2 is one of the most popular songs ever written. It’s also the type of song that you will hear in weddings that you dedicate to your love ones as well as the type of songs where people hold candlelight while large numbers of crowd sing along to.

The reason is because of the lyrics of “one love, one life, one need, sisters, brothers, we got to carry each other”. Those lines there seems to paint a picture of a united humanity where everyone is holding hands, singing together about how different races and different culture are all “One” and how they are all human and we should be living together in world peace etc. Well that is part of the message of the song but not the only message.

It kind of show the phenomenon in music that when people focus on lyrics, they concentrate on the punch line, the chorus and what they perceive that line to mean instead of looking at the entire lyrics. I’m quite sure if people really knew what this song was about, whether people would actually play these songs at wedding. It’s similar to how people do love song dedication for The One I Love by REM even though that song is also quite nasty (about seeing the person you love as an object and a commodity).

This song has two meanings. The first meaning is that this song is about a relationship breakdown. However the second interpretation which I’ll be focusing on is that this song is a gay rights song which U2 has encouraged that interpretation. It is probably one of the angriest and spiteful songs I have ever heard and it’s strange when people really romanticised the optimism in this song. Bono has said in the past that when people told him that they played this song at their wedding, Bono responded “Have you even look at what the lyrics is”.

This song is about a person who has AIDs being discriminated and disowned by their parents because of their sexuality. Bono was quoted as saying that he knew many family who did unchristian like behaviour to their children when they find out they were gay and this song was about that. If you want a clue, just look at one of their video clips above where you see the band cross dressing and it also contains artworks from a gay rights activist. Some of the money made from this single release went to an AIDs group.

Considering that Bono has a large Christian following covering a wide political spectrum (U2 unlike most alternative/rock bands are not predominantly left wing liberals. I remember hearing about the uncomfortable reaction from the audience when Bono made a speech about how David Hicks should have been released. This shows that the demographic of a U2 fan is quite diverse with different political/religious views), I’m not too sure whether people would actually still sing along to this song so readily if they knew what this song was about. It doesn’t help that U2 push on the myth that this song is solely about some pro-peace, promoting unity and harmony between different cultures.

Now I’ll analyse the lyrics. Although the previous commentary is reflective of U2’s opinion on what the song is. The following analysis is my interpretation and mine only. If it is different to what Bono thinks, well my belief is that with lyrics, your own interpretation is just as important as the song writer’s interpretation.

Is it getting better
Or do you feel the same
The lyrics start off with the Bono’s character talking to his father about whether he is more accepting of his sexuality. Bono’s character is asking whether his father is more accepting about his homosexuality or whether he still holds resentment about his lifestyle choices.

Will it make it easier on you now
You got someone to blame

I interpret this as because the character has AIDs. His father can finally “win” the argument against his lifestyle choices. That he has AIDs make it easier for his father to blame him on his choices in life.

You say...
One love
One life
When it's one need
In the night
One love
We get to share it
Leaves you baby if you
Don't care for it

I interpret the first chorus as his father telling the son, there’s only one type of love, one type of life you must follow (heterosexual lifestyle), there’s only one need. These are the values we must share and that he abandon his son because his son didn’t share those values.

Did I disappoint you
Or leave a bad taste in your mouth
You act like you never had love
And you want me to go without
These lyrics document the bad blood between father and son. That he disappointed his father, that his homosexuality left his father a bad taste in his mouth. He’s saying that his father to not want him to be a homosexual is asking him to live life without love.

Well it's...
Too late
Tonight
To drag the past out into the light
We're one, but we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One...
At this point of the song, his saying it’s too late to drag out past decisions that he has already made. He has already has AIDs, there’s no point debating about the mistakes his done in the past (and whether his choices were mistakes). No point to keep on arguing about it.

This also features one of the best lyrical line of all time “We’re one but we’re not the same”. It’s brilliant as it says we are all human but we are all different. Therefore we all have to accept people different and help (or carry) each other despite the differences.

Have you come here for forgiveness
Have you come to raise the dead
Have you come here to play Jesus
To the lepers in your head

I interpret this as the father although is now forgiving of his son. However, the resentment from Bono’s character voice is that he hasn’t done anything wrong for his father to forgive him and accusing him of playing Jesus and trying to cure him (and perhaps his father own guilt).

Did I ask too much
More than a lot
You gave me nothing
Now it's all I got
We're one
But we're not the same
Well we
Hurt each other
Then we do it again
The character is asking whether he was asking too much from his father. Whether him being accepted for being gay was “too much and more than a lot” which made him receive no love from his father. That because he is not the same as his father in terms of sexuality, they end up hurting each other.

You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt

This is where the character is now accusing his father of being a hypocrite. That he believes in the bible and he believes in love but he is treating people subhuman due to their sexuality. That he believes in love but can’t accept the kind of love his son is having. That he has to enter the temple and accept his version of religion on his knees and not on his feet. To me that’s the most powerful part of the song. The characters is pretty much saying “You believe that love is a temple and love is a higher law, but then why do you make me crawl, why do you make me feel insignificant.”

One love
One blood
One life
You got to do what you should
One life
With each other
Sisters
Brothers
One life
But we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One...life
One
This is the final chorus and although the first chorus and the last chorus both had “one love, one life” etc, the message here is opposite to the first chorus (which was brilliant lyric writing by Bono). Instead of his father lecturing about “One Love”, here the characters starts saying a message promoting diversity. This is where the song sound likes the type of celebration of humanity that people normally associated with the song. That every human of different backgrounds are “One”. Bono has said that one of the things he hates was how religious groups and other groups talk about how humanity are one and are all the same. He hated that idea and that’s why he also added “One life but we’re not the same”. That it’s true that every human being is “One” but the only way human can become one and be unified is for people to accept people are different and to treat every people who are different as “one” and as a human being. That we must carry each other and treat people equally despite any disagreements or differences you may have.

Bono summarise it perfectly here “It is a song about coming together, but it’s not the old hippie idea of ‘Let’s all live together.’ It is, in fact, the opposite. It’s saying, ‘We are one, but we’re not the same.’ It’s not saying we even want to get along, but that we have to get along together in this world if it is to survive. It’s a reminder that we have no choice.”

So that’s my analysis of the lyrics of this song. Although I’m a big fan of U2, I have never been a huge fan of Bono as a lyricist especially during the 80s (with the exception of Sunday Bloody Sunday). I always thought that Bono’s lyrics were always way too general and too much imagery and was focus in creating an atmosphere rather than talking about an issue directly. In the end, most U2 songs could have been about anything because they lack any logical progression. A lot of times people just know that any particular U2 song is about one particular issue that they support but when you actually read the lyrics you ended up asking how on earth the song is about that. Even Bono himself admitted his lyrics in the 80’s were substandard but partly justified it as saying that the message was more important in how he got the message across. That even if his lyrics didn’t express his views in a clever way, it was ok because the message he got out was positive.

However with “One”, Bono has hit the mark delivering both in spades. He wrote a great story with a clear message that felt more focus but with room for interpretation (considering that majority of people probably didn’t connect this song as a gay rights song). It was brilliant song writing and I believe this song was a landmark song in Bono’s lyrical development. Although I think recent U2 is not as good as old U2 in terms of music, I do think that Bono is a better lyricist then he was in the 80’s and this song was his first progression there. The contrast between the final chorus and the first chorus was brilliant writing.

However despite all the praise, I’m still a bit bemused by the overwhelming popularity of the song and how people seem to think this is a romantic song. To me, this is a very dark and angry song with a light at the end of the tunnel but people seems to view this song as a celebration of humanity. In a way they are right with the final chorus but I don’t think you can just take a particular section of a song and look at it in isolation. I just think people just look at the line “One Love” and automatically go holding hands with the nearest human being and then ignore everything else that was said in this song. Even if you don't accept my gay rights interpretation (there are others such as relationship breakdown). Just a casual look at the lyrics shows that it has a pretty dark and angry tone to it that people tend to overlook

Lyrics (Over)Analysis - This Charming Man By The Smiths

This time I am analysing the lyrics of The Smiths which is a band that has my favourite lyricist in Morrissey. The song I'm analysing is This Charming Man where you can hear the song above.

Just remember that when I'm interpreting lyrics from songs not written by me, I'm not saying my interpretation are an objective truth or that my interpretation matches the lyricist himself. This is just how I choose to perceived the lyrics to be about. I'm quite sure that Morrissey probably has different opinion on what the song is about.

I interpret that this song is about a homosexual man who is confused over his own identity and then met "this charming man" who helped him become comfortable with it.

I believe this song has beautiful and funny lyrics

A punctured bicycle
On a hillside desolate
Will nature make a man of me yet ?

I interpret that the punctured bicycle on a hillside desolate implies that the main protagonist feels lost and isolated.

When he cursed nature to make a man of him, he is implying that his feeling of lost and isolation is due to his homosexuality and he is blaming nature for making him that and wished that nature turn him into a normal straight man.

When in this charming car
This charming man

However he sees a charming man drives in like a knight in shiny armour to save the day

Why pamper life's complexity
When the leather runs smooth
On the passenger seat ?

Maybe this interpretation reveals more about my sick mind then the song itself. However I see it as a humorous comment that means, why worry about life's complex problem (why pamper life's complexity) when you can have sex on the smooth passenger seat of a luxury car. I admit that this interpretation would have made more sense if he wrote "When the leather runs smooth on the BACK seat" which is the seat more associated with that act. However this is my interpretation and it makes me laugh when I hear that line even if it may not be the true meaning. 

I would go out tonight
But I haven't got a stitch to wear
This man said "It's gruesome that someone so handsome should care"

This is probably my favourite line of the song. The protagonist was worried about going out when he hasn't got any decent clothes to wear and is self conscious about his appearance (if we follow this song from Hand In Glove, the protagonist is probably dressed in rags as well).

However the charming man reassures him that he is too handsome to care about the clothes he wear.

From personal experience, I have met certain girls who put so much effort on the type of clothes they wear and get so anxious about their appearance when it seems like they would look good wearing anything even if they were dressed in rags (That's an interesting line to used "It's gruesome that someone so pretty should care"). So this line has always resonated with me and it's a beautiful line.

A jumped up pantry boy
Who never knew his place

This was actually a quote from a movie called "Sleuth" that was used when a wealthy class man described a poorer person derogatively who was disobeying him by saying he just a pantry boy (which is the lowest of house servant) who is behaving outside his own social status and class. So it does establish that the protagonist is just a poor boy (albeit a rebellious one). Although originally the quote "who never knew his place" was originally meant that the person didn't know their social status. In the context of this song, this means that the main character did not know his place with his own sexuality.

He said "return the ring"
He knows so much about these things
He knows so much about these things

The charming man than tells the protogonist to return the ring. Marriage is an exclusive domain of heterosexuality in most parts of the world and I believe this line symbolises the charming man telling him to reject heterosexuality and be comfortable with himself. The main protagonist admires the charming man for knowing so much about this issue.

So that's my opinion on what "This Charming Man" by The Smiths was about. Feel free to offer your own interpretations.

Lyrics (Over)Analysis - Devil's Music by Trung Doan

Play the youtube video to listen to the song Devil's Music

One of the more intriguing things about rock music, was how radical and dangerous it was perceived to be by some of the more conservative elements at that time.  Rock music was referred to as the "devil's music". From Elvis Presley who’s dancing was considered so risque that they have to censor his dancing to protect the public from being corrupted by his performance when he was shaking his arse to the controversy of The Rolling Stones who were accused of being devil's worshippers due to the song Sympathy For The Devil even if the song certainly didn't support satanism. Black Sabbath who despite writing lyrics that was against satan were routinely criticised for promoting satanism as well.

So for this song that I've written, I'm a telling a cautionary tale about the dangers of rock music influencing the youth. I sort of imagine that there was a scare campaign film illustrating the dangers of rock and roll by telling a story where a youth was listening to rock music which influences the person to go and cause chaos and then ended up being jailed for their crimes. This song is told from the perspective of the corrupted youth

Lyrics
It's quiet now
I'm never there
Trapped in four walls

The lyrics supposed to implicate that the main character is a naive person who has been shielded by society (assuming from their parents) and had a quiet life. The trapped in four walls was meant to be metaphorical in a sense that their minds is trapped in four walls as they haven't seen the world outside their narrow view.

You took me away and showed me a place where I never been before
I'm alive

Who is "you"?

"You" in the context of the song is the personification of rock music

By listening to the rock song, the person was seduced by the music and it felt like it open the character's mind to a different place and different world and the character felt alive from the experience. I personalised rock music to make it appear that it’s like a person seducing people to the evils of the world aka the devil.

Of course, there's no indication at this point that "you" is rock music but this will be revealed later on.

Slowly turning moving away from past life
Slowly turning moving in your sight
Boredom gone now, unlocking a part of my mind
For better or worse now see the "new me" arrive

This passage of lyrics goes through the transformation in the mind of the main character. The protagonist is no longer naive and is discovering the world around him and the person feels electrified about the discovery of rock music. This has changed his personality but he doesn't know whether it is good or bad.

Move away there's no control
Move away there's no control
Move away there's no control
In the name of fun

However it turns out that rock music made the protagonist lose all sense of inhibition and he ended up losing control over himself.  The main character is causing chaos but the person is not creating chaos out of any ideal or politics etc. They are just doing it because it is "fun". That's what the perception of rock music was in the past where it encourages people to have fun damning all the consequences that resulted from it. Rock music is quite connected to the hedonistic lifestyle.

We’re crazy kids, too much time in our hands
We’re crazy kids leaving a wake of death

So rock music ended up inspiring kids who had too much time and were bored with their lives to become chaotic that ended up leaving a wake of death (you got to ratch up the drama when you are making a scare campaign).

We're crazy kids don't tell us what to do
And watch us self-destruct

This line was inspired by The Living End song called Prisoners Of Society which I generally dislike as it romanticised youth rebellion. It had the line "We don't need no one like you, to tell us what to do"

This line is a bit of response to that by saying that if people don't tell youths what to do then their lack of discipline (plus the influence of rock music) will caused them to self destruct.

Oh no
Look what you've done now
You let the monster out
Will I be boring again?

The main character is starting to feel a bit self-conscious about the chaos he is creating. He realised that the rock music has unleashed the monster inside him and he starts to wonder whether he will ever return back to his boring old self again.

Move away there's no control
Move away there's no control
Move away there's no control
In the name of fun

We’re crazy kids, running amok
We're crazy kids, who put the devil in us?
We're crazy kids, watch us self-destruct
I guess that's rock and roll

The question is asked who put the devil in the kids that made them lose control and self destruct. It's finally revealed that the culprit was rock music itself.

It's quiet now
They locked me away
Trapped in four walls
They took me away and show me a place where I never been before
That's life

Now the main character is locked away in prison where it's quiet. The "trapped in four walls" which was metaphorical at the beginning is now literal. At the beginning of the song, rock music took the character in a place where he never been before, but that place was meant to symbolise a mental state that the character has never felt. Now it says that rock music has taken the person to prison which the character has never been before.

Slowly turning moving nowhere for now
Slowly turning keeping me away from you
Boredom back now, wishing it never left before
For better or worse now see the “new me” arrive

The person realised that he is stuck in prison and now wished that the boring old self never left him. The character realised that being boring (rock fans often tell people who find rock music to be childish to be "boring") isn't so bad as being boring may just mean being stable.

The song should end at this point with the main protagonist learning his lesson. However the main character hears rock music in the background and returns back to his chaotic ways as the "Move Away There's No Control" section repeats itself.

It turns out the "new me" wasn't a return back to his boring self but actually a return back to his chaotic self after a moment of self doubt. That ends the song as the message of this anti-rock music propaganda is that the influence of rock music is permanent and that there is no redemption from the corruption of it. That's why rock music has to be something that is stopped.

_______________

In any case, I'm not too sure whether this song is a satire of the sensationalistic reaction to rock music being the devil's music or whether this is a cautionary conservative tale warning parents about what happen to kids who aren't discipline properly when they have too much spare time on their hands. It may works on both levels in a sort of absurd way.

If I have any criticism about the lyrics of this song, that perhaps the lyrics were too vague for people to realise that the song was about rock music. I generally like lyrics to be direct and straight to the point and this song breaks my own rule by disguising the meaning of the song. Even when I reveal rock music as the cause of the problem with the line "I guess that’s rock and roll", I'm not too sure if people can connect that line to the rest of the song without me telling people the meaning behind it. I always felt that people should be able to work out the meaning of the song by studying the lyrics without external sources explaining the true meaning to them. I'm not sure whether I have accomplished that with this song.

It's also questionable that people will realise that the song is satire because I sing this song with an absolute straight face and that there is a very dramatic music in the background. The whole purpose of this is that I'm pretending that if an anti-rock music propaganda film really does exist, there will be an actor playing the character who is self-destructing due to the influence of rock music and that actor will play it straight. Therefore I have to play the character straight as well and pretend that this is serious drama. I'm not too sure if that approach works in the music medium like it does with the film medium.

Although violence was one of the concerns of the dangers of rock music (especially during the riots during the 60's and songs like Street Fighting Man by The Rolling Stones), majority of the conservative concerns about rock music was that it was advocating drug used as well as sexual debauchery. This song doesn't address that at all which impairs any satirical impact the song is making. Also how relevant is the satire when it's satiring a mindset that was common decades ago and is kind of resolved now? Maybe the song would have worked in the 60's but perhaps people can argue that the lyrics is irrelevant now.

I'm not too sure how I would fix that and for now I'll leave the lyrics of this song at its current state.

In any case, even though people may not get the connection to rock music. The song works without the connection. If people didn't get the song to be about rock music, people will just interpret that a person came and influence the naive protagonist down the dark path which caused the main character to descend into chaos until that character became imprisoned. So I don't think that's a big problem.

Despite the criticism I have with the lyrics, I'm still fairly happy with the lyrics I wrote as it was a step up to what I was writing at that time.

Anyway, that conclude my lyrical overanalysis and I welcome any feedback on the lyrics, song and analysis.

Solid evidence that there’s no media conspiracy against Football

The mainstream media treatment of Football has always been a problem amongst supporters. It always seems like the media is out there looking for and sometimes creating negative story on the game to bring down the game as Football is a main competitor of AFL and NRL. It doesn’t help allay fears of conspiracy when it was demonstrated that Channel 7 in the past tried to bury this game.

Now people may be sick of the whole Ljubo Milicevic controversy and so I’m not going to rehash whether his comments were right and wrong. However, even if you agree with Ljubo, you got to admit that those comments were controversial.

One of my first reactions to watching this interview was that this is going to cause a shitstorm. Sure Ljubo Milicevic is hardly a household name and most Australia doesn’t know who he is but I was sure that wouldn’t have stopped the mainstream media to put the boot in the game. After all if an AFL or NRL captain of a club and said similar comments in the middle of an interview and that interview was publish online for everyone to see than I’m quite sure that would have caused a major controversy. Ljubo may not be famous but the media could have made him famous solely due to this comment.

For the game to be derogatively known as “Wog Ball”, it was a perfect opportunity for the media to reinforce that stereotype that football is only played by “Wogs” and encourage ethnic division. I could imagine headlines such as “Ljubo Racist Row”, I could imagine Rebecca Wilson writing an article about how this is returning to the bad old ethnic division days of the NSL. Cue reports about Soccer shooting itself in the foot. I could imagine Today Tonight doing a hatchet job story and show footage of Ljubo describing the Union Jack as a flag of rapist and pillagers and then asked some war veteran what they think of that comments and then have random people complaining about “Reverse Racism”. Then conservative shock jocks would bag the comment and have viewers calling in the show to express their disgust at him and the game.

What ended up happening was nothing. No articles from any professional journalist. No Today Tonight putting fuel to the fire. No controversy at all.

I’m not too sure whether I should be relieved or offended. On one hand I do feel relieved that this game avoided a massive controversy and that there was no big PR blow for the game. However, I’m also offended that Football is considered such a small fish to fry that they are not going to even bother raking in a controversy.

The lack of controversy hit me in the core of my belief about a conspiracy against Football. That perhaps the newspapers don’t have groups of people searching for negative stories on Football. That Channel 7 no longer determines to wreck Football in Australia. That perhaps Rebecca Wilson doesn’t look for any opportunity to put the game down at any moment. That perhaps the AFL and NRL aren’t out to get us. That maybe there is no media conspiracy against football in this country.

__________

Nah, the media just happened to missed this opportunity this time  :)

Ljubo Milicevic leaves Australia in disgrace

I was watching Ljubo farewell interview in SBS and was finding it mostly entertaining, with his forthright opinions. However, towards the end of the interview, Ljubo pulled out the stunner: “I’m Croatian, I’m not Australian. You guys don’t want me here.”

He justifies this by saying he doesn’t feel any loyalty to the Union Jack as he believes that the flag represents rapists and pillagers; that his backyard has fruit in the trees (like the rest of Australian doesn’t have fruit in their trees); that his father has Croatian music in his CD player and that he was raised as a Croat; that he’s emotional and passionate and relates more with Goran Ivanisevic than Australian sports stars as he finds them dull and boring; that Australians can’t pronounce his name right; and that he is embarrassed about Australia Day, where people use the day as an excuse to get drunk. He also criticises Australia for picking and choosing when migrants are considered to be Australian.

Now, whether you agree or disagree with what he says is kind of irrelevant. In fact, a lot of his supporting statements make a lot of sense to me, but there’s a big leap with agreeing with his supporting statement and then saying, “I’m not Australian.”

You see, the problem with Milicevic is that he has confused negative stereotypes of being Australian. The fact is Australia is a liberal democracy and there’s no precondition in personality or political belief to be Australian.

All you have to be is an Australian citizen to be Australian (to be a good person on the other hand has a lot of conditions, but unfortunately people have a tendency to mix being a good person and Australian up).

About 45 per cent of the population voted yes for the Republic, which shows that a lot of people don’t have loyalty to the Union Jack. However, those people aren’t less Australian than people who voted no. We have a former Prime Minister in Paul Keating who wanted to change the flag to remove the Union Jack. Whether you agree with Keating or not, you can’t say that he isn’t Australian.

There is a lot of Australians who bemoans the fact that sports stars are boring and there are a lot of people who find the frankness of some foreign sports stars to be refreshing as well. I seriously doubt that most people weren’t embarrassed by the Cronulla riots or some of the past treatments of Aborigines as well.

His statements about the Union Jack being a flag of rapist and pillagers are just outright offensive and racist due to its gross generalisation. There isn’t a single country in the world that doesn’t have rapist and pillagers and there is no evidence that the United Kingdom and their respective colonies are pillaging any more than any other country in the world. I’m quite sure most countries’ flag would become symbols of atrocity if we go through past histories, and I’m not too sure why the Union Jack has to be singled out for that.

There are also Australians who don’t support Australia Day and cringe at the excessive alcohol that is drunk on that day. In fact, there are certain groups on the left who believe that Australia Day should be changed to another day in respect for Aborigines as we shouldn’t be celebrating the day England colonised Australia. Other countries with Indigenous cultures don’t do that. Now whether you agree with those views or not, it doesn’t make you any less Australian.

He says that he was raised as a Croat. Well Australia is a multicultural country that doesn’t discourage people from expressing their cultural identity and doesn’t overtly discourage people behaving differently to the mainstream. Therefore, contrary to his statement, that is a very Australian upbringing. I also find it strange that he justifies his status as a Croatian because he listens to Croatian music, has a cellar and has fruit in the trees in his garden. It seems an overly simplistic summary of Croatian culture.

I do agree with him that Australia does have double standards in terms of how they treat migrants. If migrants are successful, they are Australian. If the migrants commit crime or fail, they are ethnic, when, in reality, the success and failure of migrant communities are a reflection of Australian culture just as much as the success and failure of the wider community are reflection of Australian culture. After all, Martin Bryant is just as Australian as Don Bradman. This type of double standards encourages nationalistic thinking that Australia equals good values and foreigner equals bad values. However, having problems and criticising Australian culture doesn’t stop you from being Australian as Australia is a liberal democracy.

I also believe that he is being overly sensitive on Australians being unable to pronounce his name. The Chinese have been in Australia since the gold rush in the 19th century, however I doubt Milicevic will be able to pronounce the names of most traditional Chinese names as he doesn’t know the Chinese language.

If you don’t know the language of a particular country, then it is expected that people will find it difficult to pronounce names of people coming from those countries. It is expected that the European countries have a far more developed language education due to the closed borders with countries that speak a completely different language, and therefore it makes sense that people in Europe are more likely to be able to pronounce his name more accurately than people in Australia. Nevertheless, I’m quite sure if you become friends with people, eventually they will get your name right.

It’s a shame that Ljubo could only make friends within his own ethnic culture as he boast that there are “no Anglos” at his BBQ. It’s a shame that he couldn’t find someone of an Anglo background with similar political and social values that he can relate with, but I’m quite sure his negative assumptions of Anglo culture prevents him from doing that.

I felt sad watching the interview with Ljubo as we see a person rejecting a country where he has lived for most of his life. Australia gave him his education and a football education.

I do believe that Ljubo got it completely wrong in his announcement that he isn’t Australian. I also believe that Ljubo revealed his racism by picking and choosing negative attributes to summarise the entire Australian culture.

However, I don’t completely blame Ljubo because the worst feeling I have watching the video is the realisation that perhaps the nationalists have won; that perhaps the idea that being Australian, you have to have a narrow specific personality and political values is so widespread, that people outside the mainstream such as Ljubo end up agreeing with the nationalists that to be Australian you have to have these certain values.

Therefore, he and other like minded individuals agree with the nationalists that they aren’t Australian and therefore fuel criticism of migration and how they don’t integrate within Australian society.

Hopefully Ljubo’s attitude to what it means to be Australian is not widespread across the community.

_______

Note: Ljubo Milicevic himself has responded to this article

The pitfalls of respecting cultural differences

Vir – “They are tolerant of differences among other cultures’
Londo - “No, they have no well-defined sense of morality”
From Babylon 5 “Point Of No Return”

In this modern PC world, it seems to be a common for people to talk about respecting cultural differences. The idea that we shouldn’t be telling other cultures how to behave and what to do. To do so, you would be accused of enforcing your own cultural values on another and at worst guilty of cultural imperialism and racism. I guess a lot of this was a reaction against the assimilation policy in the past where people from different culture were told they have to behave like everyone else and have to adopt “Australian values” etc.

Although I don’t agree with assimilation policy and especially the idea that migrants or people in general have to conform (beyond law and basic custom) to society. I also don’t agree with the idea that an individual must respect cultures of another society or your own society.

Firstly, what do I mean about culture?
I define culture as the collective values, beliefs and customs that any particular group shares. However, the one thing often overlook is that culture is something fluidic. Culture always changes. The culture of today’s society is different to the culture hundred years ago which is also different hundred years before that. It changes when society critically evaluate their own values and then abandon values that are no longer relevant and adopt new ideas if it improves society.

If we look at every society, there have generally existed people who are progressive political beliefs who points out in their opinions the problems in society that has to change and the traditionalist who supports the status quo. One of the aspects of the political left and right divide is whether you are a traditionalist or progressive, where the progressive are generally considered to the left and the traditionalist are considered to be to the right (although there are exceptions as well as centrist with a combinations of both views). What happens is that there is always a constant debate about the values of a society between the two sides and eventually if there is a change, one side will convince the majority of the population to reject previously traditional values or adopt new values. Hence, the society ends up creating a new status quo and new tradition.

This nature of culture ends up showing some of the pitfalls of respecting cultural differences.

Firstly, whether a value or belief is part of someone’s culture or not, that doesn’t tell us the quality of the values or beliefs. An idea is either a good idea or a bad idea (or a neutral idea, or shades of gray idea). The value of an idea lives and dies on its own merits and this doesn't change whether that is part of their culture or not. When someone defends a social belief or practice as ‘It is part of our culture/tradition’, then that argument has to be rejected due to shear irrelevance.

To dismiss criticism of society values as examples of racism or cultural imperialism is really a discouragement of critical evaluation of society values which in my opinion, is anti-democratic. After all, the whole idea behind protest which is fundamental to democracy, is expressing our dissatisfaction of the practices or beliefs of our society.

I don't care if something is part of their/our culture. What’s more important is 'Why it is part of their/our culture?', 'Is it beneficial for society to adopt those cultural values?', 'Are the reasons behind these cultural practices still relevant today?'

My second problem with respecting other cultures (or our own culture) is that it makes the assumptions that everyone in their respective cultures agrees with it. Like I mention before, every society has critics of their own cultures. There are always subpopulations that don’t follow traditional values. Of course, by definition they are in the minority but who’s to say that the minority is any less right then the majority. Thousands of years ago, the minority of people probably would have been anti-slavery. However the minority of yesterday became the majority of today. Who knows, the values of the minority of today may eventually become the values of the majority of the future. There’s no reason why the values of the minority is any less representative of the potential future of society then the values of the majority of the population.

So by demanding people to respect the culture of another society, you are essentially expecting people to give passive support to the status quo and traditionalist elements of that society. Now there’s nothing wrong with supporting the status quo and traditional values especially if that’s your opinion on what the world should be. However is it really reasonable to expect everyone to do that?

What if the person is a progressive in their own society? If a person is a critic of their own society and doesn’t really respect traditional elements of their own culture, then why that person should be expected to respect the traditional values of another culture that’s even more different then their own personal values.

Instead of viewing criticism by saying a person is disrespecting their culture; see it as they are supporting the progressive elements of their society.

Thirdly, I see respecting culture as a disempowerment of individuality and personal beliefs. This refers to my opening quote from above. People talk about respecting cultural differences but people then forget the personal opinion of the individual. If a person ‘agrees’ and respect many cultures that has diverse but ultimately contradictory views of the world, what does that say about the person personal values. Does the person have any real personal morals, conviction and beliefs of how the world should be of their own? If I respect for example the anti-gun restriction culture that exist in the United States and then respect the gun control culture in Australia, then I don’t really have any personal values or stance on that issue.

Eventually, everyone has to make a stance on what they believe is right and develop their own opinions on what the world should be. If that conflicts with the cultural practices of another society or their own society, then so be it. A person shouldn’t have to worry about offending people or being called racist for simply expressing an opinion on how the world should be.

Personally I believe that peoples should stop seeing the world as a battle of cultural clashes and more about the battles of individual values. So the health care debate in USA isn’t about European/Canadian culture vs US culture. No it’s about what role the government should play in regulating health. The criticism of the system of government on let say an Asian country; this isn’t about West vs East and enforcing Western values on Asia. It’s the debate about what is the best and most moral form of government for that particular country. If there’s human rights criticism of another country, it’s not about one country enforcing one cultural moral value on another society. It’s the debate about what is right and wrong? (A debate that will never end)

People should be able to get into discussions about these issues without criticism about being branded racist or cultural imperialist etc.

So what about tolerance?

I believe in tolerance. However the way I interpret tolerance is that I may completely disagree with or hate other people’s ways of life but I'm willing to peacefully coexist with you irrespective of our difference of opinion. Similarly to how the political left and right can peacefully coexist in a country despite having pretty differing philosophy on how the world should be.

So people should tolerate the cultures of another society but tolerance does not equal non-critical acceptance of different beliefs and tolerance doesn't mean beliefs are exempt from being criticised, mocked and satire (similarly to how both the left and right are commonly subjected to ridicule from both sides)

Although I may seem critical of the quote from Vir, I do believe both comments have validity. There is a fine balance to be made between tolerance and having own personal principles. On one hand you have the view on how the world should be and it’s important for people to stand by their conviction. On the other hand the person has to realise that there isn’t a single person in the world who will share your opinion about every issue and therefore everyone has to learn to peacefully coexist with people who you disagree with. After all, we just have to look at wars and conflicts being committed due to ‘differences of opinion’.

For that reason, I do believe in a degree of liberalism/freedom that we shouldn’t ban activities just because we don’t personally like them and that we shouldn’t enforce people to accept our personal values. Especially cultural practices and differences that don’t really affect on other people ways of life such as interest, general customs, interest, foods people eat, attitudes people have etc.

However there are limits to tolerance and sometimes society do have to enforce their beliefs on population if there is a clash with a value that is integral to the culture such as moral beliefs and issues involving human rights (example, overriding parents autonomy if they refuse to treat their child with blood transfusion or antibiotics for religious reasons) Although where to draw the line about the limits of tolerance is too much of a complicated issue to discuss in detail here.

I will now address this argument "People within their own culture have the right to criticise their own culture but outsiders can't criticise them"

This seems to be a return of "Separate but equal" segregationist beliefs.

I just ask, are we all human beings or not?

It seems to me that the world is heading to a direction where we start seeing ourselves as human beings first, member of race/nationality/religion second. Therefore all issues are relevant to mankind.

Once we start saying that this value is wrong/immoral and we can't accept this in our own society but its ok for other society to practice this, we start getting into racist and moral double standards territory.

Now I can see pitfalls in an outsider criticising a culture such as a) The outsider's criticism is often misinform as they only have superficial knowledge of other cultures and therefore they have no idea why the culture behave in this way and doesn't see the underlying good reason behind people's behaviour, b) Sometimes certain cultural practices may be really important in one society but less so in other societies due to unique circumstances (location, weather, resources, money, technology) that each society faces, c) People often don’t know the cultural practices of another society and have a tendency to equate negative attributes to a culture of another society they don’t like (eg. Racist comments such as Asian are greedy, Muslims are terrorist etc) and d) People do have the tendency to equate being different as wrong without ever really justifying it

However I personally believe by encouraging dialogue and debate on each other society, people will eventually have a better understanding on why people behave differently. Any arguments will live and die by its merit and misinform criticism and incorrect generalisation will be exposed for what they are.

By having a knee jerk, “This is racist and you can't criticise our culture. End of debate.” The only thing that does is silence the criticism but it won’t address any concerns the person have and you won’t change the opinion of that person as the arguments won’t be address. That will just makes people's ignorance on other cultures worst and will increase misunderstanding.

The assimilation policy was wrong as it was under the belief that the culture of the host country to be superior to other cultures and that there isn’t anything to learn from other society. However I also believe that the political correctness of respecting cultural difference to be equally wrong as it implies that other societies are above criticism. Although I do believe in tolerance, I find the idea that tolerance is not enough and that people have to appreciate and respect the rich cultural diversity and difference to be a very naïve and impossible concept. Society may be able to stop people from killing each other due to cultural differences (although we are not doing a great job at that), but we won’t be able to stop people from having different opinions and from strongly disagreeing with each other and from expressing that disagreement. I don’t see people strongly disagreeing with each other within a peaceful context as a bad thing.

__________________________

Epilogue
I'll declare myself as left of centre politically and I consider myself to have progressive political views. However I do believe that this political correctness is the bane of the left and in fact contradictory to progressive and liberal values and I'm frustrated by the hypocrisy that sometimes sprouted by the left. It is of my opinion that respecting culture and progressive politics are incompatible. One of the separating features between someone who is conservatives and someone who is a leftist is how much value do you put in protecting culture and tradition. The hallmarks of progressive politics is that culture isn't there to be romanticised but is there to be analysed and scrutinise and criticised. That tradition and culture isn't its own reward and there must be something good about those values to justify keeping it. More likely then not, they will be supportive of change in society and change in culture if they see problems in society. A conservative is far more likely to believe in the protection of cultural and traditional values and I can actually understand why a conservative would go on about respecting cultures of other societies. 

Now I've seen otherwise progressive people who go on and criticised Australian culture quite savagedly and yet when other societies practice the same cultural practices that they dislike, they end up just dismissing it as differences in culture. I think that type of attitude is hypocritical and is a betrayal of progressive politics. If you are going to be progressive, then be progressive to all cultures and not just your own.

Really, when I see people of ethnic minority group espousing the values of traditional values and maintaining cultural heritage. I don't get teary eye and filled with romanticism about their cultural practice, I just see them as right wing conservatives of their representative community and treat them accordingly (which is with respect but strongly disagree).

I think it's far better for people to just judge individual issues on its own merit and avoid bringing up cultural clashes.