QueenZone discussion #1115877

Soul Brother wrote: Some interesting responses (in the positive) to the Guardian's ongoing campaign against Queen..... link

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: But didn't they do the same thing, play to black people and interact with black musicians? They shouldn't have played there in a PC sense, but the case is to be made that by going there and playing to a mixed audience they did more good than the gypsy midget freakazoid Steven Van Zandt did with his fantstically horrible Sun City song? What did that song change? SFA probably.

12yrslouetta wrote: It always made me chuckle when Queen brought out that tired line of we arent political in anyway, and its all about entertainment. Im presuming then if they were offered enough money then they would have played to nazis. Whats the difference!? Im sure nazis love a good ole knees up. I love Queen, but i will always be sadened that they went to South Africa when apartheid was being enforced by force. And its a shame in many ways that people still defend their behaviour. They werent the only band or artist that went to Sun City but that doesnt or shouldnt excuse their behaviour. That was in 1984, today this unpolitical band are now putting their lot in with mandela. It is kind of ironic BUT if they can get someone around the world buy a t-shirt or see a gig so all the proceeds go to the right place, thats got to be good thing.

Daniel Nester wrote: Wow. The "I have a couple Black friends" bit.

12yrslouetta wrote: It always made me chuckle when Queen brought out that tired line of we arent political in anyway, and its all about entertainment. Im presuming then if they were offered enough money then they would have played to nazis. Whats the difference!? Im sure nazis love a good ole knees up.

12yrslouetta wrote: haha, nice reply zeb, that made me chuckle. let me guess, a white guy right?? Hey, its all good.

YourValentine wrote: No, they did not play to a mixed audience. They played to a rich white audience for loads of money against the UN boycott and against the rules of the British union.

Mr. Scully wrote: Who cares about one band having played in Sun City... there will be Olympic Games in Bejing within a few weeks. Now what's worse...

Raf wrote:

Mr. Scully wrote: Who cares about one band having played in Sun City... there will be Olympic Games in Bejing within a few weeks. Now what's worse...

And several important world leaders have been told to boycott it, and all of them declined, while on the other hand, not many leaders thought twice before joining the USA boycott against the Soviet Union under the cheap Afghanistan war excuse.

Oberon wrote: But, I find it strange that Queen are often critised for playing Sun City, yet their South American tours are fine, even though some of these countries were run by ruthless dictators. I'm not sure exactly which S. Am countries had death squads - was that Venezuela?

Oberon wrote: I am not particularly informed about South Africa under aparthied etc, or about the homelands, but YourValentine's evidence seems valid etc. But, I find it strange that Queen are often critised for playing Sun City, yet their South American tours are fine, even though some of these countries were run by ruthless dictators. I'm not sure exactly which S. Am countries had death squads - was that Venezuela? I guess these countries weren't blacklisted etc, but I would have thought there were worse attrocities there than South Africa. I'm not condoning apartheid at all, and as I said, I don't know the detail, but I don't remember large scale executions in S. Africa - lots of discimination etc, of course. Please don't be too harsh if I'm showing my ignorance!! So, while I'm sure the money was a big draw for playing Sun City, I wouldn't be surprised if Queen's management spinned the mixed audience thing to the hilt (esp. with Brian), so maybe the band didn't realise until they were committed. I think they have morals, but they also have business sense. And I don't personally consider it to be a big mistake or issue. I don't really see the sense in stopping the "general population" from seeing artists. If we took that approach with S africa, why didn't Wham get hammered for playing in Communist China, with it's history of attrocities (still probably in place in the '80s I expect). I think it's probably better to let artists play such places, even if it is to rich whites and a splattering of africans. I'm not sure much is achieved by depriving people of these things. If you leave such places cut off from the world, where does the inclination come to change it? Where does the influence come so that people realise there's a different way? That's my view anyway.

kingogre wrote: Steve Van Zandt, who was the head of Artists against apartheid, said sometime ago that he had a meeting with Queen about the concerts after they got back from Sun city. Ackording to him the band had just been incredibly naive and unaware of the situation and showed genuine regret.

kingogre wrote: Maybe so, but Little Steven was well satisfied with what they had to say so who knows. I think theyve more than made up for what they did being as active in the 46664 project as they are anyway. Maybe out of bad consciousness or because of Freddie dying of AIDs but still. They both seemed very moved when Madiba made his speech, Brian even seemed to have tears in his eyes, so I would guess they are sincerely interested in what they are doing. Playing a charity-gig for Nelson Mandelas birthday is sure a good way to make up for what they did so I dont know what this journalist is on about. Either he has grossly misunderstood what the evening was about or hes just trying to promote himself or he has never liked queen. Who knows... As I dont think that Brian supports apartheid I dont see it as relevant if hes made the connection between Native americans and South Africa.

kingogre wrote: As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.

Sir GH wrote:

kingogre wrote: As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.

And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.

Holly2003 wrote:

Sir GH wrote:

kingogre wrote: As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.

And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.

By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.

kingogre wrote:

Holly2003 wrote:

Sir GH wrote:

kingogre wrote: As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.

And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.

By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.

This is a very good point and certainly true. However it is also easy to overestimate the awareness of the crimes of the apartheidregime at the time. Especially among rock superstars who have never really lived in the "real" world. But the UN embargo is a good point and I dont buy for one second that it wasnt the money that made them go there. Maybe they werent fully aware of what was going on and regretted it later, but they sure werent going on some sort of "peace-mission". Thet were far from alone in playing sun city though.

Holly2003 wrote: By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.

Zebonka12 wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.

Because (of course), you can really get inside the heads of 4 people who screwed up 20 years ago. Yep - you've really got your finger on the Queen pulse, there! link ^^^ Yeah.... they were such meanies!

Holly2003 wrote:

Sir GH wrote:

kingogre wrote: As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.

And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.

By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.

on my way up wrote:

Holly2003 wrote:

Sir GH wrote:

kingogre wrote: As we have seen the organisers allowed a few coloured people into the shows to keep artists who demanded mixed-race audiences satisfied.

And that's exactly it. I'm sure any artists who played there would have been assured beforehand that the audiences would be "mixed", and so the concerts were played. Intentions were good (they surely didn't support apartheid), but artists later realized what was actually going on.

By going, mixed audiences or not, they were breaking a well-known and established UN embargo and therefore supporting apartheid. The mixed audience thing is, imo, a convenient excuse that artists used while they were counting their money.

Is that the same UN of which the most important countries(China, US, Russia) do not accept jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court(in The Hague) because they fear their own military leaders will be convicted for violating human rights? Oh yes, it is. Quite some security council, heh! I think it's fair to say Queen did not foresee the trouble they were getting themselves in. I truly beieve they had the naive idea that they were going to play for mixed audiences. It's a rare wrong decision from the band....Everyone makes mistakes. But saying they did it intentionally is just crazy. I think the money argument is quite weak too. Queen were always excited to visit new places(for example also South-America)and this was also the case here. And about the shows: a pity there aren't any recordings!

Holly2003 wrote: Since you have your finger on the 'Queen pulse' how much did the Kampuchea concert cost Queen and how much were they paid for the Sun City concerts?

Holly2003 wrote: was Brian misquoted (...) or is this the 'real' brian may of that era (...). Any idea if this is true or not?

Brian May wrote: We carefully considered all the pros and cons for a year before deciding we would be doing more to achieve the end of apartheid by going than by staying away. Sun City was the only place in South Africa then where a colour bar wasn't operating. The audiences were mixed, the hotel we stayed in was mixed. We were able to speak against apartheid in interviews and play with black musicians in Soweto. (...) We had turned down lucrative offers to play in Johannesburg and Cape Town

Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME No but seriously - they might have been naive in the extreme to play Sun City, but what position are you to extend that to a lack of moral fibre on the scale you're suggesting?Can the bug in your bottom be so swollen?

Sheer Brass Neck wrote: In that era. Virtually everything post-Freddie's death (5ive, Hollywood Recods fiasco, partnering with the Sun on WWRY, album artwork, multiple re-releases etc.) has been a poor, if not wrong decision.

Oberon wrote: Just because there's an international embargo, doesn't mean the embargo is right. I don't believe such things achieve what they are intended to. An embargo is intended (I believe) to stop a country such as SA receiving goods etc from the international community and in doing so force a change of regime in order that the country can break the embargo. BUT, IMO, all the embargo does is deprive the "innocent" population rather than the rich/influencial minority who would have been able to get around the embargo and get whatever they want. So you tell me, what does an embargo REALLY achieve? Can someone pinpoint the reasons for the end of apartheid? I think it was more to do with the internal changes/forces rather than external forces wasn't it? I'm not up on SA modern history - can anyone enlighten me? (Might be going way off topic, but I'm interested in if the embargo achieved anything).

Oberon wrote: So by definition an embargo punishes the very people it is intended to help? Sounds balmy to me! And SA wasn't a democracy was it? Blacks didn't have a vote, other than in their homelands, but what did that matter? Still not convinced. Surely any population will strive to overturn such regimes if there are enough persecuted majority? Why does an embargo help that? It was the government that ended up having to release Mandela and enter into negotiations to hold open elections, but did the embargo do that, or the untenable internal structure and unrest? Did the embargo really influence these internal changes? Surely it would have come about even if bands were free to tour and sell their records etc in SA?

Oberon wrote: Now, the argument would hold a lot more weight if Queen had taken the money and given it to some causes, but could they be sure that it would end up where it should have done? Or at least SOME of the money (maybe they did?). Brian did petition that the fine they incurred should be used for african causes, but the organistion that fined them put it in their own coffers (and again, who knows how that would have been used - would it have been used to aid africans?)

Brian May wrote: When we were taken to task by the Musicians Union for breaking their embargo on playing in South Africa, (...) The compromise we came to was that the money would go direct to the Kutlwanong school for the deaf in Bophutswana, a school for poor children which we already supported by way of the entire proceeds from a ?Greatest Hits? album we put out specially for South Africa.

gnomo wrote:

Oberon wrote: Now, the argument would hold a lot more weight if Queen had taken the money and given it to some causes, but could they be sure that it would end up where it should have done? Or at least SOME of the money (maybe they did?). Brian did petition that the fine they incurred should be used for african causes, but the organistion that fined them put it in their own coffers (and again, who knows how that would have been used - would it have been used to aid africans?)

Brian May wrote: When we were taken to task by the Musicians Union for breaking their embargo on playing in South Africa, (...) The compromise we came to was that the money would go direct to the Kutlwanong school for the deaf in Bophutswana, a school for poor children which we already supported by way of the entire proceeds from a ?Greatest Hits? album we put out specially for South Africa.

HTH