Rebecca's Thoughts

The year is 2001, the second plane hit the World Trade Center and Bush wanted revenge. What ensued was a decades long war forever leaving the Middle East in shambles. It was a tumultuous time when it came to politics and people had to learn what a post 9/11 world looked like. Unlike previous American led wars, Iraq was not Vietnam, Americans were not rallying behind the anti-war movement and people especially didn’t see the war as an attack against American values. Where the Vietnam war saw music as a means to safeguard humanity, empathy, and peace. The Iraq war brought forth a different kind of music, patriotic music. This could not have been heard louder then in the country music genre. Country acts were rallying behind the war in star spangled boots and hats, singing the praises of the Bush Administration, and cursing those darned terrorist.

Flash forward to 2003 and patriotic, pro-America, music is a country genre staple. Songs like “Have You Forgotten?,” released in 2003 by Darryl Worley, spent seven weeks atop the Billboard country music charts.

“It was a local decision on our part, but who really drove it was the listeners. They just could not get enough. They wanted more patriotic music. And if you’re a good program director, you listen to what your fans want and give them more of it,” RJ Curtis, executive director of Country Radio Broadcasters and former program director for KZLA said in an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine. “If you put ‘U.S.A.’ or ‘America’ in a song, you had a pretty good chance of getting attention,” said Curtis.

Worley’s “Have You Forgotten?” wasn’t a fluke hit either. In December of 2001 saw Alan Jackson’s “Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)” reaching number one on the Billboard country charts and holding the spot for six weeks. 2002 saw the Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)” reach the top of the charts and outside of number one position, songs like Aaron Tippin’s “Where the Stars and Stripes and the Eagle Fly,” “Only in America” by Brooks & Dunn, Charlie Daniels’ “This Ain’t No Rag It’s a Flag,” and Randy Travis’ “America Will Always Stand” riddled the charts. All these songs had one clear message; America is strong, and the war in Iraq is just.

The last part isn’t explicitly present in all these songs, but I personally think that the message is clear in the lyrics and both the presentation of these songs and the timing for releasing them. “Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)” by Alan Jackson is widely regarded as an anti-war song in its messaging of peace and unity, but in what capacity? I don’t think that any of these songs are inherently bad, but I do think that, with the intention to or not, these songs capitalize and profits on crisis and trauma of 9/11. I also think that songs like “Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)” can function as a justification for the war in Iraq and this song was 100% used in that vein. What’s a greater way to justify a war then show the struggles and trauma of the victim nation and their fight to pay homage and seek retribution for those who died in the terrorist. This gives people an outlet to grieve, release frustrations, and something to rally behind. Even those who weren’t politically active, or uninterested in previous wars could get behind the Iraq war. 9/11 effected every American in some capacity and a rallying cry that backed Bush and a pro-American regime was something people could get behind with little thought and effort.

This essay is about The Chicks (formerly The Dixie Chicks) and how a pro-American, pro-Bush, and pro-patriotic push within the country music genre led to the blackballing or “cancellation” of one of the largest acts of the time.

“Traveling Soldier” is a country song by Bruce Robinson released in 1996 and re-released and rewritten in 1999. It is a song about the Vietnam war and depicts tragedy and the ultimate sacrifice one can make for their country. Unlike “Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)” it’s undeniably an anti-war song and the message of the song was just as relevant regarding Vietnam as it was to the Gulf War as it was to Iraq. Young people face the brunt of any military conflict. They go into battle zones, die, and are forgotten by the masses. People remember those who died in 9/11 but likely not those who died in Iraq. “Traveling Soldier” is also the last number one charting single the Chicks released (both on the Hot 100 and country charts). A cover of the song was released in 2002 and was the third single on the album Home and was widely praised and well regarded. The album is seen as being some of the best music the Chicks have released and some of the best country music ever. Both of these pretty hefty claims for a band that wasn’t allowed to be played on the radio, so what went wrong?

Nine days before the invasion of Iraq on March 10, 2003, the Chicks were preforming at the Shepherd’s Bush Empire theater in London, England. Before introducing the song “Traveling Soldier” Natalie Maines of the Chicks said this:

“Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

Betty Clarke of the Guardian reported that the crowed cheered at the comment. Clarke wrote in her review of the concert: “At a time when country stars are rushing to release pro-war anthems, this is practically punk rock.”

Something that isn’t widely reported is that after Maines’ comment another member of the band said: “But you know we’re behind the troops 100 percent.”

According to Merriam-Websters Dictionary, cancel culture is defined as: “the practice or tendency of engaging in mass cancelling as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure.” In September of 2004 the band Green Day released the album American Idiot. The album told a story of the generation moulded and formed by the events of 9/11 and the Iraq war. The album is much acclaimed and consistently ranks on publications “album of all time” lists. The song “Holiday” criticizes Bush and the war in Iraq, all without explicitly calling out either; is that the difference? From the outside American Idiot is blatantly more anti-America and Bush. Additionally, this is a whole album, an almost hour-long tirade, against America and the people running it. This makes a comment said at a concert in London seem like child’s play.

When Clarke reported cheering in the audience, she was reporting on a trend seen throughout Europe. The Bush Administration was widely dislike by the European public. A  poll conducted in France, Germany, Italy, and Great Britain saw the majority of responses with high disapproval ratings for Bush with a lack of confidence from the European public. Many Europeans saw the administration as only working in the interests of America. In Britain, the country the concert was held, there was widespread resentment directed at Bush, American war mongering, and militarization. Europe as a whole saw mass protest against the war in Iraq. A CNN article reported that in February of 2003, “more than 500,000 anti-war protesters are expected to take the streets of London… with 100,000 each in Paris and Rome and 80,000 in Germany.” When everyone is against something except a small niche of people how can you really be mass cancelled?

But the comment wasn’t treated like child’s play, and I think it would be an understatement to say that this comment wasn’t taken well by the country music community. Their other hit song on the Billboards chart “Landslide” slid down the charts from 10th to 23rd, death threats were thrown at the members of the band, and sponsorships where pulled. I think the biggest things to come out of this was the blackballing, of their music on country music stations. Their music wasn’t allowed to be played, and therefore awards couldn’t have been won.

I don’t think that the Chicks were what some people claim as ‘the first victims of cancel culture’ nor do I think that ‘cancel culture’ is exists in the first place. Rather, I think the truth behind the situation lies in freedom of speech, censorship, and the chilling effect. This is what this essay is about and is something I’d like to explore. I don’t think cancel culture is real, rather I think it is used under the pretext of saying “I disagree with something and I’m going to attack it.” You do not have to think critically about it when you can throw hate and vitriol at it, its easy folks!

Under this pretext, cancel culture is censorship dictated by an in-group and directed at outsiders. This, in turn, creates a sort of self-censoring that the outsiders use as a means to prevent push-back from the in-group. If cancel culture truly did exist people like J.K. Rowling, and Louis C.K wouldn’t be relevant or making their rounds anymore. Like these two individuals in particular are foul, and very little of what they have to say should be added into the public’s zeitgeist, but they both utilize cancel culture in a way where, despite playing the victim, they are able to rile up their base. They use cancel culture as a means to stick it to the “woke liberal elite” and further their agendas.

Additionally, just Googling “cancelled celebrities” will bring up a field of random people who, for the most part, have done little wrong outside being miserable people or mildly annoying. This delegitimizes the idea of cancel culture but also weaponizes the term, as you can direct it and ‘cancel’ anyone for any reason. The term, at its core, doesn’t mean anything and it’s up to the people throwing it around to decide what it means to them. People like J.K. Rowling, and Louis C.K can use cancel culture to support their victim complexes and have something to point at when people disagree with their bombastic takes. In doing so, they allow themselves to speak off the cuff and essentially say whatever they want. They then deflect any criticism thrown at them as attacking them under the guise of “cancellation.” When J.K. Rowling makes a transphobic comment and people attack her for it, she is able to look at her base of TERFs and transphobes, and say “see these people hate us, they tried to cancel us, we must fight back against their woke agenda.” Only adding further flames to the fire, thus the hellish cycle continues.

If cancel culture is as arbitrary as depicted, then “we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas” and “trans women shouldn’t have rights” are placed on the same level of bad. Now, in this house, trans women are women, and they should have rights. George W. Bush is bad, and he should be ashamed of the war in Iraq. This argument also means that someone who is mean to customer service workers and someone who commits hate crimes can both be ‘cancelled.’ And as someone who has worked in customer service roles for more than preferred, some one who is mean to me will always be less of a threat as someone who goes out of their way to spread hate, discrimination, and other abhorrent ideologies. Like, I think it is quite disingenuous to deem these two things as equally cancelable things a person can do. The broadness and objectiveness that comes with cancel culture leaves little nuance to distinguish these two things apart.

Anyone who has ever wrote a thought down has confronted the idea of self-censorship or “chilling.” Whether its deciding on the appropriate tone, wording, or manner of writing, all of this challenge the idea of free speech. In 1995 the Parent Music Resource Center (PMRC) had a mission to clean up music and rid it of the occult, sex, drugs, and other profanities. The group of Washington D.C. power wives led by Tipper Gore wanted to adopt a similar rating system as the Motion Picture Association of America and apply it to music. The Filthy Fifteen is a list of fifteen songs that the committee deemed some of the most egregious and lobbied the television studios to not play and support the songs as well as others in there vein. The PMRC, although not having a clearly defined agenda or plan, wanted to essentially rid the popular music landscape of songs like these and their alleged messaging. The PMRC was seen as a joke for most in the industry and was criticizes almost as much as it was parodied. Musicians were essentially writing songs explicitly about the PMRC and Tipper Gore. None of the artists listed in the Filthy Fifteen or the preceding parodies faced really any repercussions outside of the pearl clutching women and the Christian lady sphere. These people were blatantly talking back to the government and their songs weren’t pulled from stations, awards weren’t denied, and in the grand scheme of things nothing happened.

I can hear the chants now, “oh Rebecca, the PMRC and the ensuing madness was orchestrated by men. It was men that wrote the songs about Tipper and the nonsense that she talked about. The Chicks were women, they were tackled by the grips of misogyny.” And sure, I think that a large reason for the mass hysteria and many, many beefs seen in the aftermath of the Chick’s downfall could be attributed to the fact they were a girl group, with many of their contemporaries being men. I think that is fair, but I also know that five of the Filthy Fifteen’s musicians were women and made songs not only for women but for the masses.

Madonna had many controversies, hell she even had songs pulled from the radio, yet she was still very much relevant, and her music was a guaranteed success. Madonna was way more commercially successful than the Chicks and wasn’t as confined to the genre of music she performed, but she objectively did worse things than the Chicks, yet her career never really faltered. Madonna even released a protest (?) album and although often considered one of the worst albums of all time, with some of the worst singles of all time, nothing ever really came of it. Like, Madonna has a music video for the first single “American Life” where she is seen singing on a fashion runway, inter-spliced with footage of guns, bombs, and missiles being shot at a far-off nation. The music video ends with her throwing a grenade at Bush himself, and literally the worst thing that came of this situation was MTV airing an alternate version of the music video. Yes, what MTV did was an act of censorship, I’m not arguing against that, nor do I really want to discuss whether a music video with a grenade (it ended up being fake, it was a joke guys!) being thrown at the president of America should be shown on TV. That’s not what this essay is about. This essay is about The Chicks (formerly The Dixie Chicks) and how a pro-American, pro-Bush, and pro-patriotic push within the country genre led to the blackballing or “cancellation” of one of the largest acts of the time. And while I think that above statement is true, but I don’t think it is the full story.

When the Chicks’ music was pulled from radio stations there was one large driving force behind it; Clear Channel (now branded under iHeartRadio), a company with a history of allegations about curbing artists careers. This is the same Clear Channel whose former Vice-Chairman Thomas Hicks reportedly contributed over $500,000 to the Bush campaign. With an additional $503,910 being directed by the company’s founder Lowry Mays to the Republican Party. And like I’m sure this could all be one big coincidence, and that there was no intention by the Clear Channel executives to silence voices that went against their political agenda. One million dollars, however, is a lot of money to go towards a political party and the president running for it. Additionally, many of the parties that were strongly against the Chicks’ proved to be conservatives and align themselves with future Republican leaders.

When put into this context, the idea that this was a campaign to silence the dissidents is clearer. Genres have been a hindrance to many things but have also allowed for creativity and new ideas to flourish. As expansive as a genre can be they can also be very restrictive, and this dichotomy was something the Chicks faced in the aftermath of what was said. As a band that played genre music, they had truly little playtime outside of country stations, and their voices were, for the most part, silenced. This also sent a message to other country artists ending the conversation there. If you wanted to be played on the radio, you could not talk about Bush or the war in Iraq negatively.

On March 10, 2003, Natalie Maines said while onstage during a concert:

“Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

This comment wasn’t woke, nor was it a particularly hot take, but the legacy that followed it was one of censorship, and set a message to anyone who decided to speak outside of the status-quo within in the country music genre. Things have changed since then, but the idea of cancel culture hasn’t. People are still being pushed to the side for voicing their objectively not incorrect opinions and there will always be a victim to relish in the mystery and capitalize off of what cancel culture can do for them.