This thread has sparked a few thoughts for me.

I've noticed that many regimes which attempt to take total control over a large group of people will make decrees that music, art, literature, dancing and other cultural forms of expression should either be banned outright or should only be allowed if it fits the prevailing propaganda. The conclusion that some people have arrived at, including me, is that these forms of expression are extremely powerful because they communicate on many levels, and because the messages they can convey can strike a chord (a musical pun) in many of the people participating in or watching/listening to these activities. If the controlling regime fears mutiny then suppressing these activities helps to stop people communicating, and helps to stop them from getting motivated to take action. It's not unrelated to banning groups of three or more from getting together, i.e. unlawful assembly, which one of our states in Oz relied on rather a lot during a period of (relatively minor by world standards )political unrest.

Examples which spring to mind are Hitler's confiscation of many works of art which portrayed society in a way which he may have interpreted as "encouraging" freedom of expression or freedom of lifestyle e.g. impressionism, or homosexuality, etc. Just saw an interesting documentary on this a couple of days ago.

Also the English have attempted to suppress arts, music, and language of the Irish and Welsh, and probably many other cultures.

The other thought that occurred to me is a historical story I heard about a Welsh contingent of soldiers fighting in France - when, where etc I don't know - and after fighting all day the Welsh were sitting around their campfire singing their songs, and then from across the battlefield they heard the French soldiers, possibly Bretons, singing the same tune but in their own language. How could you fight the people who sing the same songs you do?

Helen