Quote:
Originally posted by Daval
I've never understood the american tradition of villifying anyone who does not agree with them.
|
It's not exactly an American tradition, it is human nature to want to silence dissenting opinion.
In this specific situation, it is a case of a group of people not wanting to support these artists who have opinions that they feel are wrong. By supporting the artists, you support the messages that they put out when they hit the stage. It's a sad statement, but celebrities in America wield great influence over their fans. By buying their work, you give them the funding to keep spreading their message. The artists are entitled to their opinion, and the disagreeing group has the option of not using their money to keep the artists in the limelight.
I believe it's called the dollar vote. Artists are no different than any other business. For example: Say Pepsi began running a commercial in Afghanistan that featured bin Laden drinking a Pepsi, a message at the bottom of the screen proudly proclaiming "Pepsi: Gives you the burst of energy needed to kill thousands of Americans!". I believe that Pepsi would be boycotted by the majority of America. This is almost perfectly related to the Dixie Chicks situation: business makes statement pandering to a foreign crowd that a group of Americans don't agree with, that group votes with their dollar by organizing a boycott.