Censorship and the Confederate Railroad Controversy
Country rock
band Confederate Railroad’s scheduled appearance at the DuQuoin State Fair is
cancelled by Illinois Governor Pritzker’s office because of the band’s name and
its depiction of the confederate flag. Link
to news article and video of Pritzker statements:
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/illinois-politics-take-center-stage-amid-state-fair-music-controversy/article_00a2dafe-a336-11e9-8cb4-e312392d8e5c.html?fbclid=IwAR3aBFVMzMGKGGBCbuKHXLvk8KBugxQ7t7Yt8EZjAhoCqs2RkakBmFvxYHk#new_tab
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/illinois-politics-take-center-stage-amid-state-fair-music-controversy/article_00a2dafe-a336-11e9-8cb4-e312392d8e5c.html?fbclid=IwAR3aBFVMzMGKGGBCbuKHXLvk8KBugxQ7t7Yt8EZjAhoCqs2RkakBmFvxYHk#new_tab
The really
important issue here is government censorship of the arts. And in this case,
despite the hyperbole from both sides, the Pritzker Administration has engaged
in a selective, discriminatory censorship.
Here the
censorship results from a band’s name and branding choices. Their name and logo
on a circular emblem surrounds a locomotive flying a pair of tiny Confederate
flags.
Confederate
Railroad logo
Whether one
approves or not, unlike the terms “Nazi” or “KKK,” the term “Confederate,” and
even the Confederate flag itself do not (yet) engender a broad, universal
condemnation. They are still considered by many as symbols of southern heritage
and history, the negative connotations of associated slavery notwithstanding.
The
counter-example submitted against the cancellation of Confederate Railroad is
the booking of the rapper Snoop Dogg at the main state fair, with his album cover
depicting him standing over the body of President Trump covered by an American
flag in a morgue.
Snoop
Dogg album cover
Despite how
offensive this imagery might be for many people, the governor however, argues
in the link above that it is just an example of political satire. In no way, he claims, does it remotely
compare to the transgression committed by Confederate Railroad’s name and logo through its
referencing the “treasonous” Confederacy of southern states 150 plus years ago,
its support of slavery, the ensuing
civil war, and ultimately, the assassination of Illinois’ native son, President
Abraham Lincoln.
The political
satire claim concerning Snoop Dogg’s imagery, however, neglects the overall
content of his music. If the focus shifts to content, certainly many, many
people are deeply offended by the misogyny, the obscenities, the highly
sexualized lyrics, the calls to attack police, and so on, that are all part and
parcel of so much rap and hip-hop music as exemplified by Snoop Dogg.
In contrast,
the content of the Confederate Railroad’s music appears to have been immaterial
to their cancellation – it generally appears on par for the country-music
genre, with the typical topics and themes that one might expect from this type
of music. When content is addressed, the governor’s argument appears to
diminish considerably.
All this
back-and-forth argument aside, in art or music today there is little regarding
names or content or look or actions that SOMEBODY isn’t going to find something
offensive about. If government’s main concern is not using state resources as
representatives of a whole population to sponsor content that offends some of
its people in some way, then it should totally relinquish all of the programs where
this might happen and give it up to private enterprise.
It would seem then, as long as government is involved in these types of programs, the best course of action for democratic governments would be to allow people themselves to decide whether something meets their approval, or is determined to be so offensive that is then rejected. This democratic choice is done through the market, where people “vote” through their pocketbooks.
Now it could be argued that in the process of choosing which bands to play, “censorship” of a sort is taking place as well. But selecting performers is a different kind of act than the official banning of a performer after the selection process has occurred, based on some moralistic viewpoint or a subjective distaste.
It would seem then, as long as government is involved in these types of programs, the best course of action for democratic governments would be to allow people themselves to decide whether something meets their approval, or is determined to be so offensive that is then rejected. This democratic choice is done through the market, where people “vote” through their pocketbooks.
Now it could be argued that in the process of choosing which bands to play, “censorship” of a sort is taking place as well. But selecting performers is a different kind of act than the official banning of a performer after the selection process has occurred, based on some moralistic viewpoint or a subjective distaste.
Making smart
business decisions, performers are booked for fairs and similar events based on
who are going to have the most appeal for the area’s cultural mix and generate
the most receipts. Certainly the type of bookings that would work in southern
Illinois might not fly in Chicago, and vice versa.
Subsequently,
a moralistic viewpoint or subjective taste might be part of the selection
process, but a host of other factors also come into play as well, based on the
anticipated needs and circumstances of the venue and the potential audience,
which performers are available for the event date, how much they charge in fees,
etc.
In banning
or cancelling a scheduled performance, though, in the absence of any other
mitigating factors, true censorship occurs because an authoritative entity is
arbitrarily deciding what is best for the general public’s artistic consumption
after the fact. A decision like this deprives the public of
the aesthetic experience which they have anticipated and planned for.
In short, their inalienable right to “the
pursuit of happiness” is being denied them as citizens of a free society. And,
especially when the censorship is applied to one particular instance and not
others that can also similarly generate great offense or even incite hate, it
becomes highly discriminatory as in the case here.
When censorship is not in play, if people in a particular area do find a particular band offensive in some way, they can “vote” with their money in hand and not attend. If you don’t like Confederate Railroad because of their name, don’t pay to see their concert. If you are offended by Snoop Dog’s album cover, his message and lyrics, don’t go. And, in attending a fair with its multitude of activities, no one is forced to even listen to a performance.
When censorship is not in play, if people in a particular area do find a particular band offensive in some way, they can “vote” with their money in hand and not attend. If you don’t like Confederate Railroad because of their name, don’t pay to see their concert. If you are offended by Snoop Dog’s album cover, his message and lyrics, don’t go. And, in attending a fair with its multitude of activities, no one is forced to even listen to a performance.
Censorship
in any form is a dangerous, slippery slope. Once it starts, it sets a precedent
to extend it in all directions and apply it to anything that people in
authority and power don’t like.
