I'm not sure this exercise in rebuttal is worth the time but it might shed some light
on the misinformation and misapprehensions that some have about folk music and the left.



"No one has to give equal time to the opposing view"

Many have considered ideas that would be an opposing view and decided that they don't work. This is not blind prejudice but the exercising of reflection.

"however many here think that it is not a good thing to work hard to bring in opposing views."

Opposing views having been considered must have resolution. It's not a sign of personal integrity to hold opposing views at the same time.

"Many here believe that no one with views they do not agree with should be given a stage anywhere."

This isn't true. I think that a stage should be given to anyone with the right of an audience to accept or reject the performance through their attendance

"One should never sing songs that one does not agree with not even simple sing along for arts sake."

No. Most of us who sing folk songs will sing songs we don't agree with because our selection is in a context of programming. I think that a broader view of songs has to be in a specific context reflecting the views and taste of the performer.

"People are generally opposed although there have been a few in support of using folk music as a way to exchange views in dialog from one side to another in an open free accessible stage or media."

A song is not a Socratic dialogue. I have given concerts where I presented an anti-union song with a pro-union song. I also have presented songs representing both sides of the American Civil War. There is an old saying, "those with a completely open mind have wind blowing between their ears." People invariably have a point-of-view which does not always turn on a dime but is forged out of a lifetime of experience. This is necessary to wanting to sing songs in the first place or to present them in a context that reflects the views of the performer.


"Some people seem to think that a folk song is not art nor music but simply a sort of incantation that projects political views above all else."

I don't know any performing artist who thinks this way. Most of the propagandists are in politics and cynically know that their ideas are being used to manipulate public opinion. Not so for performing artists who feel deeply about what they are expressing. There is not one artist I know who places "projecting political views above all else" and if this is a view of Pete Seeger, then, I must question the ability of the person who says this to receive any artistic endeavor with understanding.



" Therefore singing a song that you don't agree with will be dangerous to everyone."

Singing any song will be dangerous to some one.

"There is little appreciation for songs of all political flavors as woerks of art and literature and that it is wrong to accept the equal validity of the hopes of all peoples singing together."

Since there are many different audiences for songs of all political flavors, this can't be true. But a song is not politics. It's an artistic form of expression. I know of no artist
who wants to manipulate public opinion on politics through the use of musical performance art. There are those who are not in music that claim this. It is paranoid and specious thinking and denigrates the role of the musical artist in society. This is generally a pursuit of attacking the artist for political reasons and is usually by those who have an political agenda and are not in the arts. Therefore the artist is considered by these types to be dangerous.
.


"This my friends is why folk music has failed to expand in America today."

Folk music is expanding in America all the time. There is more diversity in the area of folk music in America today than at any time.

" This is why music has only developed on one side of the political divide as it has."

This is not true because actually the role of folk music as an expression of the left-wing
in the US has broadened and diversified. It is no longer narrowly confined to the left.
Pete Seeger, for example, has been recognized as an important artist by American presidents and has fans from many different perspectives, politically. The only ones who criticize him are those who have a paranoid political agenda themselves. This is the reason there are no folk songs attached to The John Birch Society.
These songs don't exist except as satires.


" This is why folk music has been branded as something those opposing your politics dont feel welcome doing."

This is about attacking the messenger. The only "branding" that has been done historically is by right-wing ideologues who consider "folk music" to be dangerous
or sinister.

"Yes you might think your cultural world view is right, correct, moral however, we live in a world of rich and diverse cultural expressions in which your narrow one is just one and no better than any other. "

With this kind of logic we can equate democracy with Naziism. There has to be a preferred correct moral view between the two. Beheading in a public display for punishment of a crime has to be seen in a moral context and if diversity means accepting this, then as Pete Seeger has said, "I say it's spinach and to hell with it!" (Paraphrasing
the New Yorker article on propaganda from the young child's viewpoint).

"You would be the people who cover up nude statues, fail to collect songs with erotic verses and grind to dust any song that you do not agree with. You by so doing invite the same fate."

I don't see this as valid. People are fortunately more complex than that. Lakoff refers to the "bi-conceptual" as one who might profess a political ideology and behave differently from it in practice. This appraisal appears to be simplistic.

"You my friends are cultural imperialists."

There is no justification for friendship here. I don't think that anyone here on Mudcat
wants to foist their ideology or viewpoint on any one else. We each have our opinions
and in some cases they are well-grounded in reflection and sensible sensitivity.

I see that this post represents a narrow idea of politics, ideologies and appraisal of
what is actually being said here. An attack on Pete Seeger or the Smothers Brothers as being agents of Stalin or reflective of any monolithic political movement is vicious and
cold but most of all has no basis in fact.

Frank

Conrad