Take a quick trip with me back to 2003, if you will.
Natalie Maines, at a Dixie Chicks concert in London, infamously said, "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."
The backlash was immediate and severe. People and radio stations across the country were suddenly boycotting the Dixie Chicks music. I remember KLLL in Lubbock, Texas (Natalie Maines's hometown), advertising a "Dixie Chicks Free Weekend" to much acclaim. Rallies were held where people broke their Dixie Chicks CDs. I vividly remember footage of people running over the CDs with bulldozers.
People sent death threats, telling Natalie she should "shut up and sing." Some of the death threats were very specific, telling the girls from the band that they would be shot during their concerts. (All of this was the subject of a fantastic documentary, Shut Up and Sing.)
If you don't know all the facts about that situation, please go and at least read the Wikipedia article section here before rattling off inaccuracies at me.
Dixie Chicks proponents defended their right to free speech.
Fast-forward to 2012
Chick-Fil-A COO Dan Cathy made his remarks. (Again, educate yourself here before sounding like an idiot.) The reaction? Boycotts and outrage. Mayors of cities (Boston, Chicago, San Francisco) have made statements about how Chick-Fil-A is not welcome within their limits. And Facebook is blowing up with statuses of the strong-willed but ill-informed.
Chick-Fil-A proponents defended the corporation's right to free speech.
Here's my point: I don't think I need to point to statistics to prove that many people who are defending free speech in 2012 were the people who were bulldozing and death threating in 2003. (That's admittedly a gross generalization. Let's just say this: conservatives were outraged by Natalie Maines in 2003, and they are proud of Dan Cathy in 2012. Liberals defended Natalie Maines in 2003, and they are boycotting Chick-Fil-A in 2012.)
Here's what I have to say:
Chicks shouldn't talk.
Okay, just kidding.
Here's what I really have to say:
Way to go for speaking your minds. Way to go for saying what you think.
Good job, Natalie Maines. What you said was brave because you knew your fan base would probably disagree.
Good job, Dan Cathy. What you said was brave, especially since most of the country is in favor of gay marriage, and you knew there was a possibility of a backlash.
Everyone should be able to stand up and say exactly what she or he believes.
Now, to everyone else who is taking this Chick-Fil-Issue and making it into Hurricane Gaytrina. . . . by all means, boycott. By all means, tell everyone why you are doing it. Don't let your money be used to keep others from equality. OR, if you liked what Dan Cathy said, eat there every day. Organize people to go in droves! Eat there so much that you get cancer.
BUT PLEASE STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER!
1. It's annoying. 2. Your posts do have the ability to hurt other people, even if you think they those other people are WRONG. (For an excellent discussion of point number two, please see this blog post by a person I am proud to call a good friend, Brent Bailey.)
As for me:
No. I won't be eating at Chick-Fil-A any more. I mean, if I'm with a group and they want to go? Sure. I'm not gonna yell about it and tell them all to stop enjoying their precious dipping sauces, but I won't make a conscious decision to go there. I don't want my money going to oppress people. Unless those people are children who are good with a sewing machine. Then everybody be cool. Now excuse me while I go bulldoze some chicken nuggets.
Wait! I would also like to point out one other thing:
Using these two cases as equal is absolutely stupid. Why? Because when Natalie Maines said she was ashamed President Bush was from Texas, she was literally hurting no one. She wasn't causing any pain or oppressing any groups of people. And yet she received death threats.
Chick-Fil-A is helping to oppress people, and that was the point of the entire statement. Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A are proud to donate to causes that "strengthen traditional families" by opposing marriage equality. I believe that actively hurts people and causes pain. And he, to the knowledge of this blogger and the media, has not received any threats to his life.
I think that says a lot about the differences between radical conservatives and radical liberals. I know which group I would rather be associated with.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Dixie Chicks-Fil-A
Posted by Brent at 11:41 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
-- had to make crucial edit! Sorry! :) --
I agree, the Natalie Maines controversy isn't on the level of Chick-fil-a, but I understand why some would boycott and bulldoze CD's. That's their right.
That's pretty much the same stance I'm taking with Chick-fil-a. If you're upset, please boycott! People that say protesters are unfair for punishing Dan Cathy's Christian values just aren't being reasonable. It's important to fight free speech with free speech! That's how we weed out bad ideas in this country. The principle of people boycotting isn't the problem. They have a right. (That being said, let's not throw eggs or harass.)
But I cannot applaud the efforts of Rahm Emmanuel and Boston's mayor to block Chick-fil-a from their city. What a terrible precedent. If some conservatives weren't in a bubble, they would realize that groups like the ACLU, groups they usually decry and claim are satanic, are actually on their side about this. The ACLU is already pooling their resources to come to Chick-fil-a's defense.
People in governmental positions shouldn't force a business with controversial yet widely supported views out of their town. If that was the case, you would have to shut down every church in the city. This is the same reason I'm on the fence about attempts at my college to shut down Chick-fil-a. I say yes if enough students gather petitions, but it better not come as the result of an official with a bad mood.
Freedom of speech must be protected for all.
----
Also, I have heard some argue that people are unfairly punishing Chick-fil-a as a whole for the views of their president. They talk about how the local Chick-fil-a franchises are disconnected. It echoes a concern many had when people boycotted the loosely affiliated BP gas stations after Deepwater Horizon, doing more damage to local owners than BP officials.
Beyond Chick-fil-a's other offenses in the past, such as donating to groups associated with the devastating and harmful gay conversion therapy, this incident requires another look. Dan Cathy was not speaking for himself. He went on record for the company. Read the interview again. You will we see the pronoun "we." He speaks of the Chick-fil-a culture. Yes, I understand that this is not representative of all the employees, and of course Chick-fil-a hires and serves a number of LGBT individuals, but Cathy went to bat for the company. When the president of a company says something like that, it unofficially makes it corporate policy to support groups opposing gay rights.
How is Chick-Fil-A oppressing people?
I realize that, "Chick-Fil-A is helping to oppress people, and that was the point of the entire statement. Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A are proud to donate to causes that "strengthen traditional families" by opposing marriage equality. I believe that actively hurts people and causes pain." seemed to be your reasoning, but it doesn't seem to follow.
My reasoning is this.
Dan Cathy disapproves of gay marriage. Supports causes which he agrees with, for the betterment of all people.(this last phrase is technically an assumption, but an easily made one. If he were hateful, he could easily use his financial power in much more harmful ways.) That is not oppression.
Interested Person -
First, thanks for commenting and explaining your reasoning. This is exactly why I enjoy having a blog. I do hope that in the future you will be willing to add your name to your opinions, though. I believe everyone should be proud to assert their beliefs, and I will never ridicule someone just for speaking up.
Now, to answer your question:
I believe Chick-Fil-A is helping to oppress people by donating money to organizations which fight against marriage equality. While the company itself does not actively discriminate against members of the LGBT community, it is supporting the cause of those who do.
These organizations cause much anguish and pain among members of the LGBT community, and here is how:
When an organization fights against marriage equality, that organization is effectively saying, "Your love and relationship is worth less than the love and relationships of heterosexual couples. It does not count for the same status. It doesn't afford you the same federal rights."
Members of the LGBT community are told they are not of equal status to everyone else. This causes pain. I have seen it firsthand among members of the LGBT community. Organizations, such as Chick-Fil-A, are supporting the groups that are causing that pain and denying people equal rights. That is how Chick-Fil-A is oppressing people.
Next, I will address your reasoning.
Please note that nowhere in my post did I say Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A didn't have the right to campaign against marriage equality. In fact, I said he should definitely stand up for his beliefs!
Also, I have huge issues with the phrase "for the betterment of all people." I can prove the pain and anguish of the members of the LGBT community, but I invite you or Dan Cathy to prove that fighting against marriage equality is making anything better for anyone. "Traditional" marriage and families are in no way stronger because "non-traditional" families are not given the same rights. Just because you believe it does not make it a fact.
In addition, (correct me if I am wrong) any argument I can imagine would include appeals to religion or tradition (which is largely based on religion anyway). Since our country has a large and growing population of people who do not consider themselves religious, conservatives cannot expect the arguments of "morality" and tradition to hold any weight in this argument. If the government passed a law based on those grounds, it would be a de facto endorsement of religion, and it would therefore be in violation of the first amendment. This is why I believe every law banning marriage equality is undeniably unconstitutional.
Finally, I never claimed Dan Cathy or Chick-Fil-A were being hateful. (If I had to guess, I would say the company just does not realize the extent of the pain it is aiding to cause. This is simply a guess.) But even if I had, asserting that "he could easily use his financial power in much more harmful ways" is not a good argument. In my eyes, that is like saying, "He bought the knife that he knew would be going to a criminal, but at least he didn't buy a gun!" I would much prefer it if he bought neither.
Finally, oppressors rarely realize they are oppressing. They will always have reasons to justify their actions. And invariably throughout history, those oppressors have eventually had to swallow the bitter pill of realizing they were wrong.
Jesse -
We obviously agree on huge portions of this controversy. I didn't really address the issue of the public officials' statements in my blog post because, quite frankly, it was the part of this issue I was least informed about.
I do have a response, though, and it is two-fold.
First, the theory:
I completely agree that banning an institution from a city based solely on the beliefs and political donations it represents is wrong. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional. Denying those permits would mean several things for Chick-Fil-A: 1) A legal battle (which they would undoubtedly win, but the it would cost money) 2) it would mean diminished profits in those locations because they would not be able to operate until the ban was overturned. In both cases, the company would most likely sue the city and receive some sort of restitution.
Second, the practice:
Political posturing and threats are most often just that. Thus far, these officials have done nothing wrong. They haven't actually blocked the businesses from getting permits. I would argue (this is simply my opinion, by the way) that these statements are merely a way of notifying Chick-Fil-A of exactly what these officials think. They are also a way for these officials to score some points with the people they represent. Because:
I also believe these officials accurately represent their constituents. If there is a citizen of Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco somewhere holding a a sign that says, "Give us our Chick-Fil-A!" then they are undoubtedly in the minority. Most of the people from the areas in question (that I have heard from) have given the statements about not wanting discriminatory businesses in their neighborhoods their full support.
The right thing in this situation (and the thing that I believe may eventually happen) would be for the officials to allow Chick-Fil-A to set up locations and watch with pleasure as the businesses go under from a lack of customers. Ah, capitalism.
Just as a note, Rahm Emmanuel is not the one in Chicago who is threatening to block the permits. That would be an alderman by the name of Joe Moreno. Emmanuel agreed with the sentiments of Moreno, but he never crossed the line into threatening to not allow the permits. He simply said it would be a ""bad investment" to build a Chick-Fil-A in Chicago "since it would be empty."
Thanks for the clarification about Rahm Emmanuel. I did have my facts mixed up on that one.
Have you seen this article on the Atlantic?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/in-defense-of-eating-at-chick-fil-a/260139/?fb_action_ids=655272672318&action_object_map=%7B%22655272672318%22%3A10151025407762420%7D&action_type_map=%7B%22655272672318%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map=[]#.UBHgjBqR8Ug.facebook
I think it's the weakest of the arguments, but it's gaining some traction among pro Chick-fil-aers.
I think he sums up his ideas well here:
"I don't care how my dry cleaner votes. I just want to know if he/she can press my Oxfords without burning my sleeves. I find no compelling reason to treat sandwiches differently than shirts."
Talk about avoiding the hard debate! I don't have to flesh out why I think this reasoning is crazy. But this is becoming a talking point.
I appreciate your response, despite our disagreements.
That was quite helpful in clearing the ambiguity.
I forgot what my first name was :)
Good read Brent , keep up the good work , I don't want to spend my money at urban outfitter because they support Rick Santorum ... That's another topic....
Post a Comment