I have a question to all the posters who are critiquing P's lyrical social activism. What past musical examples of other artists do you find effective in promoting social change? I believe strong symbolic statements have been more effective than dogmatic pseudo-high minded rants. And have always loved P's social consciousness and instincts (Avalanche, PartyUp, the War). The subversiveness that he slipped into the pop ballad, "Call My Name", was brilliant.

My Favorites:
Marvin Gaye - Whats Goin On
The Staple Singers - I'll Take You There
Public Enemy - Fight The Power
Gil Scott Heron - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Sly - Everyday People
Lennon - Imagine

carlcranshaw said:

You forgot to mention that he drop kicked Brown Mark onstage for breaking a string.

mozfonky said:

That's True.

carlcranshaw said:

Gimme a break. Most of us have had alot more angry moments in our lifetimes. It's a crock to compare personality traits with oppression, war mongering, and imperialism. World peace has nothing to do with holding hands and singing koombaya. It's based in economic exploitation.

You try having the pressure of a multi-million dollar empire that depends on your artistic and creative triumphs and balancing huge audience expectations. And tell me you wouldn't snap at a label executive or a mediocre talent along the way.

jdcxc said:

As I've gotten older, I don't really see much difference at all in the whole mentality of a person downing a person next to them, verbally, physically and war. It's all primal alpha male behavior just on different scales. It's just our world.

mozfonky said:

Sounds like Oprah/Dr. Phil's analysis of socio/economic/religious underpinnings of war.

jdcxc said:

I never watch either of those shows. I'm just saying to me, that if i tell you that your defected in some way, that is the same thing as the way we see people we make war against. Simple, you have to see someone as less than human, and if you get enough people to do this at a strong enough level, all kinds of atrocities will be committed. Think of how the people felt who prince had to shit on over the years, it's pure destructiveness without the bullets and bombs.

jonylawson said:

Well in 1945 half of Europe won the comunism shadow. So.... who won ??

im betting my house you would never ever dare say that to an allied force world war2 veteran....

im not pro war at all but its hard not to sound like an asshole when trying to say "who won?" in 45

that was perhaps one of a few only wars that had to be fought and had to be WON

a clear cut of good v evil-yes clear cut

and thank fuck for britain-that tiny damp island who stood up and said NO as the german war machine marched through europe with its plan for global domination and ultimatly jewish exctinction

so fuck all y'all with your platitiudes and rhetoric-these guys DIED in their millions so we could sit and get fat whilst pontificicating some bullshit on the net safe in the knowledge we will never have to go through the hells that they went through

jonylawson said:

hey, settle down. I never said there ain't a time for fighting. There is a time for everything. Is it a necessity? Fuck yeah fighting is a necessity if only to protect yourself. My take is, Prince is saying words he doesn't mean in the least bit, no different than most people.

jonylawson said:

yeah thank F$%^ 4 that.. a jewish war machine hell bent on manipulation is so much better...



Speak 4 urself. None of those old geezers died 4 me 2 do anything. Nothing 2 b proud of, far as i'm concerned.More than likely thanks 2 them, our hell is only just beginning.

jonylawson said:

How very black and white of you.

Surely everyone today knows War isn't that cut and dry. You look at the financers behind Hitler and the legacy of the Nazi scientific interest, it's clear that who are the goodies and baddies is much more of a grey area.

Tut-tut.

Wow I cant believe we are taking Prince's lyrics so literally-and why have we chosen just half of the lyric he uses when in fact the full quote is
'The main problem with war
Is that nobody ever wins
The next generation grows up
And learns how 2 do it all over again.'

Which infact is true if you look at WW2 and the lessons learnt from it (or infact the fact that we didnt learn from it, ethnic cleansing was allowed to contune in Bosnia and Rwanda under the noses of the United Nations and yet little was done to prevent or stop it?

So I think Prince has hit the nail on the head here. Who really wins a war, arent we all just victims?

The main problem with anti-war rhetoric...

...is that it's almost always aimed at the wrong people.

sosgemini said:

the main problem with socks...
is that you have to wash them

bex23 said:

Wouldn't "nobody ever wins" be an argument against intervening in genocide?

Genesia said:

No, because not every war is pioneered by a racist anti-jewish man like Hitler! I was speaking specifically about WW2 and our failure to learn from it.

There are no victors in war, only victims.

bex23 said:

"Our" failure? Who is this "we" you speak of?

The Germans did learn a lesson from WWII. So did the Japanese. And pretty much anyone else on the Axis side.

And I disagree that there are no victors in war. Anyone who walked out of a concentration camp alive after WWII was a victor -- as were the people who opened the gates. Of course, there is a cost to war. But since I am not speaking German and goose-stepping my way to work in the morning, and have friends who are Jewish, I'd say it was worth it, and I thank everyone who sacrificed for the freedom I enjoy -- a freedom I consider a very great victory, indeed.

You're right, though -- not every war is started by a racist, anti-Jewish person like Hitler. Sometimes, it's anti-Tutsi Hutus. Sometimes, it's an anti-Kurd like Saddam Hussein. Sometimes, it's an anti-West, anti-Christian like Osama bin Laden.

Need I go on?

Genesia said:

Our failure as a human race.

Your taking it too literally, I dont work like that, yes of course there is a huge price to pay with war and its such a touchy subject, really I have a degree and masters in 20th century history I could go on all day.

History is always repeating itself, we as a society, a human race, failed to learn from the first world war, a war that was supposed to end all war, then another war breaks out in 1939, which we have subsequently failed to learn from. That is my argument.



Im not arguing that hitler should have been left to run amock in Europe, Im just saying that war has a price no matter what side your on, the winning side or the losing side.

jonylawson said:

Thanks for starting this topic. It is great to see so many rose colored, confused about the real world, make love not war humans in one area.

"The main problem with war" Poetry at its finest. I love me some Prince, but lyrics like these and from Dear Mr. Man are comical. Posing generic anti-war/government opinions are brilliant. Too generic to fire up conservatives, yet enough to lather up ANY liberal.

bex23 said:

Congratulations on your degrees. (I'm not sure why you felt compelled to parade that, but okay.)

I'm taking it too literally? You were the one who brought up Hitler -- and said, "I was speaking specifically about WW2 and our failure to learn from it." I just responded to what you said. And I will take from song lyrics exactly what I want to take from them -- isn't that the point of their ambiguity? What makes your interpretation superior? (Oh, wait -- I forgot. You're super-dooper edumacated. )

War is a touchy subject? Oooooh...there's a revelation.

I think I said in my post that war has a price. (Did you gloss over that part while you were dusting off your diplomas?) I also said that sometimes it's worth it -- and that sometimes you do win something for future generations. (You haven't seen Germany or Japan try anything since, have you?)

The problem is when moral relativists try to lump us in as all one big, happy human family. That means I shouldn't disparage a female genital mutilator in sub-Saharan Africa. I shouldn't disparage an Islamofascist who levels a death threat against Ayan Hirsi Ali. Even Saddam Hussein was just someone who held a different opinion of the Kurds or Marsh Arabs than I. Right?

That's the kind of thinking that allows despotism to grow to the point where a bigass war is needed to put it down. Maybe that's the main problem.

Genesia said:

Whatever I am not getting into a cyber argument over a song lyric I cant be arsed.

If you want to rant about the right and wrongs of the world go ahead...feel free.

Pat yourself on the back you won the pathetic war agument, hope it makes you feel great about yourself.

I mentioned my degrees like I said, beacuse I could talk about this stuff all day, talk being the operative word, thats the beauty of a debate.

bex23 said:

Why not just admit that, while you could talk about it all day, you really aren't interested in a debate? You'd rather have a conversation with someone of like mind, in which your view of the world is confirmed without challenge.

ZFunc said:

hear hear.. taken literally, no one really wins in a war. a human being lost is a human being lost; no matter what side of the war that person is fighting on. We all have our beliefs and many want to fight for our country; sometimes our country goes to war for the wrong or selfish reasons know only to the chosen few who lead.

So damn there is always someone who loses in a war - taken on a purely simplistic basis - not looking at right or wrong.. look at how the men and women who fight in wars are treated when they come back home - not given proper care and attention. Not given the right equipment to fight in..oh aye!

anyway this is Prince's song and his words.. just take it as that.. debating is all good; but it's still one man's words he chose to share.
[Edited 10/8/07 13:40pm]

marcia204 said:

Finally, on topic truth, proportionality and perspective.

jdcxc said:

If I could do it without being sued or arrested I'd drop kick people who got on my nerves all day.

If it was illegal I'd form "The Vigilante Drop Kick Squad" or go to Congress to propose the "One Drop Kick Rule."

Genesia said:

Well then that wouldnt be a debate would it, not sure if you are familiar with the definition of deabte-

Debate-

to discuss opposing reasons; argue
to take part in a formal discussion or a contest in which opposing sides of a question are argued
to deliberate (with oneself or in one's own mind)
Obsolete to fight or quarrel

Thus, I am quite happy to debate the issue, recognising that not everyone has the same opinion. I have my views, you have yours lets end it there, the beauty of freedom of speech is that we can both express them.

carlcranshaw said:

You know? There is a funny thing about the orgs threads, seems like you get a certain pool on certain threads. I remember posting how it's understandable to be an asshole in Prince's case. I, as a musician, have worked with so many lazy people who couldn't care less about excellence that it get's maddening, and yes, everyday life comes with it's assorted fools too. My feelings are really mixed, I understand where the man is coming from when he's so demanding but personally, I don' tlike chewing people out or hurting feelings, I'm not Prince.

bex23 said:

Well, sweetheart, if you want to throw degrees around, I might as well tell you mine's in rhetoric. So, yes -- I am perfectly acquainted with the definition of argument.

Although it isn't much of a definition if you use the word, itself, in the definition. "What's an argument?" "Well...it means to argue."

Better: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal. The "reason" part is what distinguishes an argument from mere contradiction.

Genesia said:

I never mentioned the word argument-I gave the definition of debate.

You know, differing opinions, you have your say, I have mine, then we move on.
Lets just agree to disagree.