Patterson Hood--What It Means

Talk about the songs, the shows, and anything else DBT related here.

Moderators: Jonicont, mark lynn, Maluca3, Tequila Cowboy, BigTom, CooleyGirl, olwiggum

User avatar
potatoeater
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:25 pm
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, GA
Contact:

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by potatoeater »

LBRod wrote:That first verse was not written about Michael Brown. Everyone assumed it was,
and I think Patterson changed the line to stave off pedantic dicks.
This is true. I have been wanting to mention this for some time but had not looked up the article or recording that I remember hearing/reading this to back me up. Patterson has talked about this though. It is about a black man who was shot and killed in Athens. That is what the Ruth St. line is referring to.

Here is one article I found: http://flagpole.com/news/in-the-loop/he ... and-killed

I still have not found the article/recording of Patterson talking directly about this Wright incident though, but there is one. Someone please help me dig this up so I/we can be certain it was the Wright incident he was talking about. The Wright incident is definitely the highest profile case of police killing and unarmed black man in Athens that i can find.

Still though, this will not end the argument. The flagpole article lays out the details of the Wright shooting. Wright was not shot in the back.

However still, there are videos of black men running away from police and being shot readily available on the internet to see. There is no debating whether or not black men are targeted by police and handled very differently from their white counterparts. They are. There are also plenty of videos of white men, ARMED white men, not being shot after pointing a gun at an officer or being combative. I don't have time to go in to all of this and I do not care to. Those who do not understand the BLM movement or condemn it altogether...their minds are made up and can not be changed. Police are too quick to discharge their weapon. There are plenty of videos of European police resolving situations with armed and combative citizens without the use of deadly force. Our police need new training and a better understanding of the Constitution regarding our rights and their rights. We live in a police state. We are signing away our rights every day out of fear and have been since 9/11.
I'd like to say I'm sorry, I'd like to say I'm sorry, I'd like to say I'm sorry...BUT I AIN'T SORRY!

User avatar
brett27295
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:00 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by brett27295 »

He told the story of the shooting in Athens at Homecoming this year before What It Means.
Turn you demons into walls of goddamned noise and sound.

User avatar
Smitty
Posts: 10900
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Fruithurst, Al
Contact:

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Smitty »

I definitely think the first verse is about Michael Brown. From the "two sides calling names", "no trial" and especially "in some town in Missouri", I think that's pretty obvious.

The Edward Wright shooting was part of the inspiration and obviously is referenced in the song but I don't think there's any doubt about the first verse being about Ferguson. In fact, I believe there was a trial in the Athens incident.*


*edit: the officers weren't indicted, but there was a federal civil rights trial against them and the Clarke-Athens gov't.

Wright was also not shot in the back, so the line wouldn't have been correct in that context either.
E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.

Iowan
Posts: 12063
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Oneota watershed

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Iowan »

I don't know if it's being pedantic, but when a song is clearly trying to make a point, as this one is, being accurate is important. So much of what plagues our discourse, on both sides, is people throwing around bullshit to make their argument.

DBT is better than that, Patterson would likely agree, and he made the change on that basis, when it became clear that Michael Brown wasn't shot in the back. It was the right move, and it serves the song.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21750
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by beantownbubba »

The name of the game is to communicate. I personally had no problem w/ the original lyrics (see post below in response to the original kerfuffel). The song made sense to me, the phrase was not an impediment and it did not occur to me think of it in literal terms until others took it that way. But a funny thing happened: A mini-controversy erupted and nobody was talking about the song or what it meant; everyone was talking about the accuracy of 2 words and whether those 2 words undercut the legitimacy of the entire message. I think Patterson changing the lyric was an extraordinary glimpse into the artistic process being worked out in public and while I was ambivalent about it at the time (was he improving the song or caving in to pressure?) it is now very clear that it was a stroke of genius. Not that the new lyrics are brilliant in a purely aesthetic sense, but that ever since he made the change and, more importantly, ever since the song was released to a wider public, the focus has been solely on the song as a whole, people have been talking about the themes of the song rather than being distracted by a petty argument over "accuracy" and people are asking themselves and each other "what it means." IMHO Patterson deserves serious credit for doing what needed to be done to serve the song and his larger purpose w/out in anyway ruining or negatively affecting the song as music/art.

I disagree w/ Iowan, I don't think a songwriter/artist has any responsibility to be factually accurate. Was any army in the world still using "cannon balls" when Dylan wrote "Blowing in the Wind"? Do we know whether any horses were actually killed in the Guernica bombing? But in this case, the change made sense because it increased Patterson's ability to get his message across without compromising the artistry of the song. By contrast, Dylan notoriously inserting the word "probably" before "they lied" in "Hurricane" at the insistence of record label lawyers makes the song noticeably worse imho. Accuracy did not help get the message across. It did help the song get released and achieve wide distribution/notice so it served its purpose, too, and I'm not criticizing Dylan for making the change, but I think treating artists as reporters is not a positive development.
beantownbubba wrote:shot in the back as metaphor for breach of faith. acting improperly or underhandedly?

Shot in the back as a shorter, pithier way of getting at the same idea as "shot several times in the chest after having already been shot" w/out being anatomically correct? (aka artistic license per KG)
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
potatoeater
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:25 pm
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, GA
Contact:

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by potatoeater »

beantownbubba wrote:The name of the game is to communicate. I personally had no problem w/ the original lyrics (see post below in response to the original kerfuffel). The song made sense to me, the phrase was not an impediment and it did not occur to me think of it in literal terms until others took it that way. But a funny thing happened: A mini-controversy erupted and nobody was talking about the song or what it meant; everyone was talking about the accuracy of 2 words and whether those 2 words undercut the legitimacy of the entire message. I think Patterson changing the lyric was an extraordinary glimpse into the artistic process being worked out in public and while I was ambivalent about it at the time (was he improving the song or caving in to pressure?) it is now very clear that it was a stroke of genius. Not that the new lyrics are brilliant in a purely aesthetic sense, but that ever since he made the change and, more importantly, ever since the song was released to a wider public, the focus has been solely on the song as a whole, people have been talking about the themes of the song rather than being distracted by a petty argument over "accuracy" and people are asking themselves and each other "what it means." IMHO Patterson deserves serious credit for doing what needed to be done to serve the song and his larger purpose w/out in anyway ruining or negatively affecting the song as music/art.

I disagree w/ Iowan, I don't think a songwriter/artist has any responsibility to be factually accurate. Was any army in the world still using "cannon balls" when Dylan wrote "Blowing in the Wind"? Do we know whether any horses were actually killed in the Guernica bombing? But in this case, the change made sense because it increased Patterson's ability to get his message across without compromising the artistry of the song. By contrast, Dylan notoriously inserting the word "probably" before "they lied" in "Hurricane" at the insistence of record label lawyers makes the song noticeably worse imho. Accuracy did not help get the message across. It did help the song get released and achieve wide distribution/notice so it served its purpose, too, and I'm not criticizing Dylan for making the change, but I think treating artists as reporters is not a positive development.
BOOM! Nailed it!
I'd like to say I'm sorry, I'd like to say I'm sorry, I'd like to say I'm sorry...BUT I AIN'T SORRY!

Iowan
Posts: 12063
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Oneota watershed

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Iowan »

beantownbubba wrote:The name of the game is to communicate. I personally had no problem w/ the original lyrics (see post below in response to the original kerfuffel). The song made sense to me, the phrase was not an impediment and it did not occur to me think of it in literal terms until others took it that way. But a funny thing happened: A mini-controversy erupted and nobody was talking about the song or what it meant; everyone was talking about the accuracy of 2 words and whether those 2 words undercut the legitimacy of the entire message. I think Patterson changing the lyric was an extraordinary glimpse into the artistic process being worked out in public and while I was ambivalent about it at the time (was he improving the song or caving in to pressure?) it is now very clear that it was a stroke of genius. Not that the new lyrics are brilliant in a purely aesthetic sense, but that ever since he made the change and, more importantly, ever since the song was released to a wider public, the focus has been solely on the song as a whole, people have been talking about the themes of the song rather than being distracted by a petty argument over "accuracy" and people are asking themselves and each other "what it means." IMHO Patterson deserves serious credit for doing what needed to be done to serve the song and his larger purpose w/out in anyway ruining or negatively affecting the song as music/art.

I disagree w/ Iowan, I don't think a songwriter/artist has any responsibility to be factually accurate. Was any army in the world still using "cannon balls" when Dylan wrote "Blowing in the Wind"? Do we know whether any horses were actually killed in the Guernica bombing? But in this case, the change made sense because it increased Patterson's ability to get his message across without compromising the artistry of the song. By contrast, Dylan notoriously inserting the word "probably" before "they lied" in "Hurricane" at the insistence of record label lawyers makes the song noticeably worse imho. Accuracy did not help get the message across. It did help the song get released and achieve wide distribution/notice so it served its purpose, too, and I'm not criticizing Dylan for making the change, but I think treating artists as reporters is not a positive development.
beantownbubba wrote:shot in the back as metaphor for breach of faith. acting improperly or underhandedly?

Shot in the back as a shorter, pithier way of getting at the same idea as "shot several times in the chest after having already been shot" w/out being anatomically correct? (aka artistic license per KG)

I think you kind of end up siding with me here, actually. "Blowing in the Wind" wasn't clearly referencing a specific scenario the way (at least the first verse of) "What it Means" does and you admit the change in "Hurricane" increased it's impact.

I'm not saying they have a journalistic responsibility as an artist. I'm saying as a human being trying to make a point, you owe it to your argument/cause to be accurate when discussing it. Because if you aren't, it's that much easier for people across the aisle from you to discredit and ignore your take. I sure as hell don't listen to people I disagree with when I know they're throwing around inaccuracies without pause.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21750
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by beantownbubba »

Iowan wrote:
beantownbubba wrote:The name of the game is to communicate. I personally had no problem w/ the original lyrics (see post below in response to the original kerfuffel). The song made sense to me, the phrase was not an impediment and it did not occur to me think of it in literal terms until others took it that way. But a funny thing happened: A mini-controversy erupted and nobody was talking about the song or what it meant; everyone was talking about the accuracy of 2 words and whether those 2 words undercut the legitimacy of the entire message. I think Patterson changing the lyric was an extraordinary glimpse into the artistic process being worked out in public and while I was ambivalent about it at the time (was he improving the song or caving in to pressure?) it is now very clear that it was a stroke of genius. Not that the new lyrics are brilliant in a purely aesthetic sense, but that ever since he made the change and, more importantly, ever since the song was released to a wider public, the focus has been solely on the song as a whole, people have been talking about the themes of the song rather than being distracted by a petty argument over "accuracy" and people are asking themselves and each other "what it means." IMHO Patterson deserves serious credit for doing what needed to be done to serve the song and his larger purpose w/out in anyway ruining or negatively affecting the song as music/art.

I disagree w/ Iowan, I don't think a songwriter/artist has any responsibility to be factually accurate. Was any army in the world still using "cannon balls" when Dylan wrote "Blowing in the Wind"? Do we know whether any horses were actually killed in the Guernica bombing? But in this case, the change made sense because it increased Patterson's ability to get his message across without compromising the artistry of the song. By contrast, Dylan notoriously inserting the word "probably" before "they lied" in "Hurricane" at the insistence of record label lawyers makes the song noticeably worse imho. Accuracy did not help get the message across. It did help the song get released and achieve wide distribution/notice so it served its purpose, too, and I'm not criticizing Dylan for making the change, but I think treating artists as reporters is not a positive development.
beantownbubba wrote:shot in the back as metaphor for breach of faith. acting improperly or underhandedly?

Shot in the back as a shorter, pithier way of getting at the same idea as "shot several times in the chest after having already been shot" w/out being anatomically correct? (aka artistic license per KG)

I think you kind of end up siding with me here, actually. "Blowing in the Wind" wasn't clearly referencing a specific scenario the way (at least the first verse of) "What it Means" does and you admit the change in "Hurricane" increased it's impact.

I'm not saying they have a journalistic responsibility as an artist. I'm saying as a human being trying to make a point, you owe it to your argument/cause to be accurate when discussing it. Because if you aren't, it's that much easier for people across the aisle from you to discredit and ignore your take. I sure as hell don't listen to people I disagree with when I know they're throwing around inaccuracies without pause.
Wow, that's interesting. I thought I said that the change to Hurricane REDUCED its artistic impact and the communication of its message but did INCREASE its ability to be heard because by making the change, the song was able to be released. Those are not the same thing. Put another way, what I'm saying is that Dylan's song, as artistic expression, should not have been held to the same standard as reporting and should not have needed to be changed in response to concern about libel laws. But that's not the law, the change was necessary and releasing a flawed song is better than not releasing a better song.

I absolutely agree w/ you that public discourse has been demeaned by the disrespect for facts and the ease w/ which arguing about non-factual allegations can draw attention away from the larger points being made. I disagree that art should be held to the same standard. While based on real events, does anyone care whether "The Wig He Made Her Wear," "Fireplace Poker" or "Go Go Boots" are accurate to the last detail? Of course the issues being addressed are less important than those in "What It Means" but the point is that the writer/singer is allowed to get across his larger observations about hypocrisy, the evil that lurks in men's hearts, you never know what's really going on behind closed doors, etc etc w/out us worrying whether the color of the wig is right or whether it was actually the poker or the bellows or what have you. We know that Patterson changed the state in the true story memorialized in "The Deeper In" to serve the song even though it created a major factual inaccuracy. It does not detract from the song one bit, imho. IOW the singer singing about a topical subject shouldn't be held to the same standard as a politician speechifying about it or even 2 friends discussing the matter on an implicitly factual basis.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

Iowan
Posts: 12063
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:00 am
Location: Oneota watershed

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Iowan »

I think that comparing "What it Means" to "Wig" or "Deeper In" doesn't really work. "What it Means" is unequivocally a topical protest song aimed squarely on an issue that's in the public eye right now. Patterson is addressing specific incidents, and using them to make a greater point. He's not telling a story about humanity like Wig or Deeper. I do think there's a higher standard to follow in this situation, and I think it's clear that Patterson himself agrees with that. He wouldn't have changed the lyric out of fear of a backlash, I'd like to think.

Regarding Hurricane, while you note the artistic impact was lessened, well, was it? Because the song got out and got heard due to the change, there's no way it would have had the same kind of impact had it been buried and drug back out years after the fact when the record company no longer cared.

User avatar
ramonz
Posts: 1439
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:23 pm
Location: "Sitting in my room, record player on..."

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by ramonz »

If PH's goal was to have as many people as possible connect with this important song, he did the right thing by changing the lyric.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21750
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by beantownbubba »

Iowan wrote:Regarding Hurricane, while you note the artistic impact was lessened, well, was it? Because the song got out and got heard due to the change, there's no way it would have had the same kind of impact had it been buried and drug back out years after the fact when the record company no longer cared.
I acknowledge the interesting "if a tree falls in the forest..." philosophical aspects of this question and have already agreed that it is better that the song was released than if it hadn't been. But I think "artistic impact" is not the same question as was it heard or not? To me it's an aesthetic judgment, i.e. the song would be better, more convincing, more artistic, without that "probably" stuck in there. But on a bottom line nuts and bolts basis you're right because a song that isn't heard has no artistic impact and only theoretical artistic merit. OTOH, I'm not ready to concede that in the battle between law and art, law wins. Did Dylan make the right decision under the circumstances? Yes. Is the song better? No.
Iowan wrote:I think that comparing "What it Means" to "Wig" or "Deeper In" doesn't really work.
Damn, I kind of liked it :)
Iowan wrote:I do think there's a higher standard to follow in this situation, and I think it's clear that Patterson himself agrees with that. He wouldn't have changed the lyric out of fear of a backlash, I'd like to think.
I also would like to think that Patterson wouldn't have changed the lyric out of fear of backlash. But that still leaves the question of whether he changed it out of a sense of responsibility to be more factually accurate or to make sure that the song got heard in the way he intended (i.e. to avoid the distraction of the argument about "accuracy" altogether)? If I may anticipate your response, I agree that the net result is the same but i still think it's an important distinction.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

The lyric controversy aside, Patterson has never had much fear about presenting this song. When it was just weeks old he played it to a crowd in Selma, AL which was to me one of the bravest things I've seen an artist do, personal bias aside. There was mostly applause but also some very noticeable discomfort. Discomfort is good but tuning out is not and there was probably a very fine line there. A couple of weeks ago he played it in Birmingham, AL and got a standing ovation. If changing the words made people listen, even for a second more, it was the right call.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

Markalanbishop
Posts: 2020
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:03 pm

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Markalanbishop »

Speaking of changing lyrics, I'm sure Patterson must have done this before or maybe even a lot but I never noticed it. Specifically, during FNOMD he sang I had my dick in my hand and was convinced some man was in there hiding out at both the 40 Watt and Eddie's Attic shows. At Eddie's he cracked himself up when he sang the line.
Kick out the jams motherfuckers.

User avatar
Smitty
Posts: 10900
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Fruithurst, Al
Contact:

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Smitty »

I had no problem with the original lyric; I'm in the camp that believes the emotional "truth" of the song is more important than being 100% totally accurate. Patterson's an artist, not a journalist.

But..
LBRod wrote: That first verse was not written about Michael Brown. Everyone assumed it was,
and I think Patterson changed the line to stave off pedantic dicks.
did bother me because that's not true. The first verse was written about Michael Brown and Ferguson. I mean that's obvious. It doesn't mean the Wright shooting wasn't part of the inspiration and it does get a mention, but to try and explain away the line by saying it's about a different shooting than it actually is bothers me because it's not and wouldn't have fit factually in the case either.
E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.

jr29
Posts: 2133
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:28 pm
Location: Jackson, Tennessee

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by jr29 »

ramonz wrote:If PH's goal was to have as many people as possible connect with this important song, he did the right thing by changing the lyric.
Absolutely. If he hadn't changed it the song would only have widened the gap between folks on the two sides of this issue.

User avatar
potatoeater
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:25 pm
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, GA
Contact:

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by potatoeater »

Whats the point of post-racial when old prejudices remain?

Alabama Mayor Goes Racial After Losing Election

Happy to see the people of Alabama choose better than this trash.
I'd like to say I'm sorry, I'd like to say I'm sorry, I'd like to say I'm sorry...BUT I AIN'T SORRY!

User avatar
Jonicont
Site Admin
Posts: 3703
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: Marvin,NC

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Jonicont »

Always go to the show

User avatar
dime in the gutter
Posts: 9014
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by dime in the gutter »

wow. powerful.

User avatar
jimmyjack
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by jimmyjack »

For what it's worth, my problem with this song is that its central theme seems to be "don't look to me for answers 'cuz I don't know what it means," but the song's first verse actually does offer an answer--incidents like this one are "racial," and if you don't think so, it "means you ain't black." To claim that the cause of these incidents is invariably racial is, in my view, overly reductive and borderline irresponsible. But I don't buy records so I can agree with everything on them, and I'm always in favor or songs that help to create dialogue about bigger issues, so it's not like it ruins the album for me or anything. It's just never going to be my favorite DBT song.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21750
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by beantownbubba »

jimmyjack wrote:For what it's worth, my problem with this song is that its central theme seems to be "don't look to me for answers 'cuz I don't know what it means," but the song's first verse actually does offer an answer--incidents like this one are "racial," and if you don't think so, it "means you ain't black." To claim that the cause of these incidents is invariably racial is, in my view, overly reductive and borderline irresponsible. But I don't buy records so I can agree with everything on them, and I'm always in favor or songs that help to create dialogue about bigger issues, so it's not like it ruins the album for me or anything. It's just never going to be my favorite DBT song.
I disagree: While pointing out the racist nature of such shootings (whether he means all shootings at all times is in the ear of the listener i guess), that's not the answer, that's a further question. The question is not what do these shootings mean?, to which the answer might be racism. The question is what do these racially motivated or implicated shootings mean, and that's where Hood says "I don't know." Probably because a one chorus answer in a pop song would be inherently reductive. When I first heard the song I was a bit uncomfortable w/ its apparently evasive nature but I think the song's purpose is to set the table, not clean it. And in any case, in context, even if taken as evasive it's not half as bad as the classic of that particular sub-genre, "I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do, so I leave that up to you," sang Alvin Lee of Ten Years After. I scratched my head back then and I laugh now.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

User avatar
jimmyjack
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by jimmyjack »

Well said, and I like your 'setting the table' metaphor. And if the reams of idiotic FB comments (and the rather thoughtful ones here) are any indication, the table is definitely set!

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

jimmyjack wrote:For what it's worth, my problem with this song is that its central theme seems to be "don't look to me for answers 'cuz I don't know what it means," but the song's first verse actually does offer an answer--incidents like this one are "racial," and if you don't think so, it "means you ain't black." To claim that the cause of these incidents is invariably racial is, in my view, overly reductive and borderline irresponsible. But I don't buy records so I can agree with everything on them, and I'm always in favor or songs that help to create dialogue about bigger issues, so it's not like it ruins the album for me or anything. It's just never going to be my favorite DBT song.
I guess when it comes down to it I agree with the premise that race is the issue and I'm not sure that is a simplification. The problem is that so many called the issue solved for decades when it was simply simmering. This country was founded on a fault line of race, fought a war over it, fought a second war over it essentially in the Civil Rights Movement and yet people of color still are treated differently by way too large a segment of the population. The election of an African American President made this segment lose their minds and the simmer became a boil.

The song says that if you don't feel that the continued violence against African Americans by various police departments is about race than clearly you aren't black. I would call that an axiom as only a small percentage of African Americans believe otherwise. I don't see that as offering a solution but rather if you want to talk about it here's the sticking point, much like Bubba's "setting the table" metaphor. As far as the end of the song "don't look to me for answers because I don't know what it means" I just think that's honesty. I don't know what the fuck it means either. Does it mean that this stain of blood that thus country was founded around is just one issue beyond solving? Is racism an inevitability that just is in the right confluence of events? I don't know either and it has kept me up at night many, many times. Rationality seems to fade in the heat of this seemingly unsolvable problem.

Not long after the song was written Beth and I went to see Patterson in Selma Alabama just after Christmas. We had heard the song and wondered if he would play it, but of course we knew deep down that he would. Selma conjures up powerful imagery from the Civil Rights Movement and yet its memorial to what happened there is neglected and in ill repair. That in and of itself is a powerful metaphor. Race bubbles under the surface like a molten river threatening to explode again. You can feel it in your bones there. The show was in an old theater and he played to a nearly full room of maybe 200 or so. The crowd was warm and gracious. Then he played the song which to me at the time was one of the bravest things I've heard an artist do. The crowd applauded, subdued at first and then more so. I'm not sure I could have been any prouder to be a fan and a friend than at that moment.

The song begs you to listen and understand racism is not over, not by a long stretch. It's not over when black parents have to teach 9 year olds how to act in the presence of police in a much, much different way than their white counterparts. It's not over when a Presidential candidate from a major party willingly takes support from white supremacists. It's not over when police see a black man and determine, from a glimpse, that he's a "bad dude". The song speaks to me because I don't have any answers either. The song is powerful, brave and far more timeless than any of us want to admit.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

jr29
Posts: 2133
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:28 pm
Location: Jackson, Tennessee

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by jr29 »

The "bad dude" comment has kinda been overblown imo.
I agree with almost everything you said but I don't see how that officer did anything wrong. There is a big man who isn't following commands...I'd assume the same thing.
Last edited by jr29 on Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jimmyjack
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by jimmyjack »

Tequila Cowboy wrote: I guess when it comes down to it I agree with the premise that race is the issue and I'm not sure that is a simplification.
Even if the offending officer is non-white, like--to cite the most recent example--this recent NC clusterfuck? I don't see how that fits the narrative, exactly, unless you're saying that police (of all races) go out of their way to target people of color.

User avatar
brett27295
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:00 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by brett27295 »

jimmyjack wrote:
Tequila Cowboy wrote: I guess when it comes down to it I agree with the premise that race is the issue and I'm not sure that is a simplification.
Even if the offending officer is non-white, like--to cite the most recent example--this recent NC clusterfuck? I don't see how that fits the narrative, exactly, unless you're saying that police (of all races) go out of their way to target people of color.
I'm not sure if they go out of their way to target people of color but it sure seems like (and statistics seem to show) that they sure are a lot more trigger happy.
Turn you demons into walls of goddamned noise and sound.

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

jimmyjack wrote:
Tequila Cowboy wrote: I guess when it comes down to it I agree with the premise that race is the issue and I'm not sure that is a simplification.
Even if the offending officer is non-white, like--to cite the most recent example--this recent NC clusterfuck? I don't see how that fits the narrative, exactly, unless you're saying that police (of all races) go out of their way to target people of color.
I think it's part of police culture even among African American officers. I think it's a byproduct of racism.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

User avatar
jimmyjack
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by jimmyjack »

Tequila Cowboy wrote:I think it's part of police culture even among African American officers. I think it's a byproduct of racism.
I guess this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. Look, I'm no fan of cops in general: I'm a pot-smoking, guitar playing, speed limit sign-disobeying, tattooed former graffiti writer with a currently-suspended license and several arrests on my record; I essentially view police as foot soldiers for the corporate elite and can't imagine why ANYONE in their right mind would choose to become a cop in 2016. But the idea that this diverse group of blue collar, working class men and women kiss their husbands and wives and children goodbye in the morning and then spend the day targeting specific types of people for no reason whatsoever is just an insane premise.

jr29
Posts: 2133
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:28 pm
Location: Jackson, Tennessee

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by jr29 »

jimmyjack wrote:
Tequila Cowboy wrote:I think it's part of police culture even among African American officers. I think it's a byproduct of racism.
I guess this is where we'll have to agree to disagree. Look, I'm no fan of cops in general: I'm a pot-smoking, guitar playing, speed limit sign-disobeying, tattooed former graffiti writer with a currently-suspended license and several arrests on my record; I essentially view police as foot soldiers for the corporate elite and can't imagine why ANYONE in their right mind would choose to become a cop in 2016. But the idea that this diverse group of blue collar, working class men and women kiss their husbands and wives and children goodbye in the morning and then spend the day targeting specific types of people for no reason whatsoever is just an insane premise.
I do think a handful target specific types of people, a very small percentage. I'm not sure that will ever change but the consequences when they do is something that can and should change.

Zip City
Posts: 17313
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by Zip City »

I wouldn't say they target people "for no reason". Clearly there is data showing that certain ages/ethnicities in different places perpetrate the most crimes. That said, the problem is assuming that EVERY person who fits those demographics is guilty and/or dangerous in EVERY circumstance, especially when there is no actual crime being committed or reported
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

beantownbubba
Posts: 21750
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means

Post by beantownbubba »

Let's start with the proposition that we as a society ask the police to do an impossible job. I mean that quite literally: It is not possible to be a police officer and follow all the laws, regulations, standards and expectations we apply to the job and to actions in retrospect. Some of that is inherent to the absurd bureaucracy that surrounds police work. But some of it is because we take no account of human behavior. I dare any one of us to be a cop in any big city for 90 days and not become measurably more racist (as defined by those of us w/ the luxury of not being confronted with the hard stuff). At the very least, how can you do that job for any period of time and not adopt some principles of profiling which are currently in disfavor? Now none of this is to excuse cops whose racist attitudes and violent tendencies result in unacceptable outcomes. But as Patterson says, by refusing to "clear the air," which means refusing to acknowledge the poisonous atmosphere that dominates many police departments, the based-in-fact-and-experience rationale that underlies some of that poison, the absurd and impossible to comply with demands we pout on the police AND the very diffcult questions addressing how criminals are made in this society, we never get down to the hard issues, the hard questions and the even harder answers. So whether you're on the "cops are not racists" side or the "cops are all pigs" side, you're wrong. Sorry. The core is rotten and we're all responsible for it.

Let's just take one relatively "easy" aspect of the problem: If we truly cared about reducing the number of criminals and the number of crimes they commit why would we create and administer a prison system that might be more accurately called the criminal creation and education system? If your answer to that question does not acknowledge the part that racism plays in how we approach the subject of incarceration you're just not thinking hard enough and/or looking at yourself critically enough. So, how much controversy have I created in 2 sentences addressing what appears to me to be one of the most easily understood and addressable aspects of the problem? This is hard, hard stuff and all the platitudes, righteous indignation (on whatever side of the equation), political correctness, knee jerk response and pseudo science in the world is not going to make the slightest dent in the problem.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

Post Reply