Nick Southall's apology thread.

Yes, um, spent some time using the old search function down at the bottom of the page, and read some of my old posts from WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back when everyone was an "insufferable cunt" and people thought I was Doomie (summer 2001 for those who, ahem, don't remember). Yes. Just thought I'd apologise for being such a little prick back then (although, actually, I was quite a big prick, thinking about it). Was the FAQ in existence back then? I should have read it first if it was.

So, um, Pinefox, mark s, Robin Carmody, Nitsuh, dave q, Josh (you seem to be the people I was most prickish towards), plus anybody else I may have irritated, um, I'm very very sorry. Thank you.

I realise this is unecessary, but, you know, it's never a bad thing to apologise when one's been in the wrong, is it?

And this little lot is taken from a discussion I've just had this here very morning on another messageboard. The attitude of the very last poster is what reminded me of my, um, previous discrepancies.

Again, sorry, and, again, thank you. I really do quite like coming here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
re: Middle class guilt

By Raymond [IP: 172.183.5.223] on 08/01/2003

The original message is from a few pages back, but decided to bring it up again.

Why would people slate Coldplay for donating 10% of the income from albums to charity?

Isn't 10% still better then 0%?? How many rich people can say that they'd donate even 1% of their income?! There's certainly a lot more people who contribute 0% then there are who'd contribute 10%!!

Sure enough, Chris Martin's not building youth-centre's and the like, but at least he's contributing something; something that's a lot more then people like you and I even take the time out to think about. He might be richer then he needs to be, but then again, aren't a lot of us? Money to foot the bills, pay for food and clothes, most of us have it.

How many of us have seen the Oxfam adverts on TV asking us to donate a measly £3 a month? Count the number of us who have actually donated that £3 a month even though we each earn a hell of a lot more then £3 per month!!
£3 is only 10% of £30 and I'm sure that the majority of the people on this board earn at least £3 per month each!!

Do I personally donate £3 every month to Oxfam? No, I don't. it's not even 1% of my monthly pay, But at least I got the fucking balls to admit it rather then slate other people who can be bothered to donate 10% of their pay.

Fair play to Chris Martin and the rest of the band,they're rich and they're actually putting some of that money to use that'd help someone else. Be that from "middle class guilt", good sense or for publicity, it's better then doing nothing.


Raz...

By Nick [IP: 144.173.6.80] on 08/01/2003

My problem isn't that CM is donating. I'd rather people donated than didn't donate, obviously, but it is still a passive act and while it may raise awareness slightly, we all know that pop musicians raising issues in the public forum actually does very little to help encourage other people to donate.

The main effect of CM wearing a Fair Trade t-shirt and making public his percentile income donation is to increase good feeling towards CM himself and his band - "oh look, he donates to charity, he must be nice, lets go out and buy his album, that single was quite pleasant..."

To quote a guy I was discussing pretty much this very topic with on another messageboard - "musicians who double as half-baked amateur politicians cause outbreaks of illogical thinking, self-righteousness and a disastrously high estimate of one's own intelligence/importance in impressionable listeners..." That is, musicians who espouse political issues in superficial and undetailed ways through associating themselvers with causes publically through voicing opinions and donation (of funds) rather than contribution (of practical help/effort [ie; building a youth/community centre, starting a charity etcetera]), thus positing themselves in a sphere of political activism/participation and knowledge which they are hideously unqualified to partake in actually do more harm than good anyway, by encouraging a culture of vicarious activism or politics-by-proxy which generally has two effects - either a; making people say "oh well, X is helping, therefore I don't have to", or b; causing people who really do not know what they are talking about to enter into spheres of discussion and action which they really should stay out of simply because they've got a vicariously acquired pool of reason about a given topic, ie; soundbites without understanding, that is; it stops people actually engaging with real issues themselves because a pop star has already done it for them and therfore they can just repeat by rote what appropriate pop star has said without knowing what the fuck it actually means. And I, personally, really do not think that pop stars are the appropriate people to be informing the world of political issues, even pop stars with degrees and good intentions.

Which leads me rather undirectly back round to my point. CM (or whoever) donating 10% of their income is the easiest, laziest thing they could possibly do, and for certain sections of our culture to big up CM and dismiss the good social works of artists in other genres out of hand without even knowing whether or not they've contributed at all to society smacks of sickening bigotry to me. And, particularly, when someone's music is so weak and apolitical that it stands at odds with (or rather, not at all at odds with actually if you think about it) their 'activism' (which, as I have already said, isn't actually activism at all in the true sense, hence it's not really at odds with their music), it just looks like another sad case of middle-class good-intentions-poor-directions guilt, that is education = understanding when it does not. Or, what I'm really trying to say, I guess, is that you can either tokenistically give 10% of your income to a charity blithely as a 'humanitarian gesture' or you can try and actually raise levels of human understanding/tolerance/awareness through your entire artistic output/approach and life-style / actually make a direct difference to some kids somewhere in an underpriveliged community by setting up somewhere safe for them to escape the underclass crime culture which they would otherwise get caught up in etcetera and all without expecting a slap on the back from the educated, middle class indie community for being sensitive and inspirational. Because it's not either.

OR, my actual, real point reduced to a simple formula - Coldplay's political activism = not actually political activism at all. Public Enemy / AsianDubFoundation's political activism = actually making a real difference to people on the ground.

so.... By john [IP: 217.39.216.110] on 08/01/2003
you're saying that they shouldn't donate.

Or... By Colin [IP: 62.31.64.2] on 08/01/2003
Donate and not tell anyone. Ever.

Or... By Nick [IP: 144.173.6.80] on 08/01/2003
Donate but not make out like it's the biggest worthiest thing in the world to do so when in fact it's not.

Chris... By Colin [IP: 62.31.64.2] on 08/01/2003
Has basically made a gesture. But he's not getting involved. He wants to have it seem like he's doing something without actually getting his hands dirty.

Exactly. By Nick [IP: 144.173.6.80] on 08/01/2003
Primal Scream, crazy old duffers that they are, actually (alongside ADF and Mark Thomas and many others) managed to help get Satpal Ram out of prison by doing something other than offering up empty gestures.

However.... By Colin [IP: 62.31.64.2] on 08/01/2003
I agree with you, but I also agree with Raymond. While there's no denying that his motives are dodgy, he HAS donated some cash, which is more than a lot of people in his position have done. So while he seems to be scrambling for the moral high ground, there is some good in what he's done.

The fault doesn't lie in what he's done but how he's done it.

Aye. By Nick [IP: 144.173.6.80] on 08/01/2003
I see that point clearly, but read the third paragraph again - the more harm than good argument. Difficult to qualify, but nonetheless understandable.

Why be so cynical? By Mark [IP: 217.41.52.245] on 08/01/2003
Doesn't everyone give to charity to make themselves feel less guilty about their happiness and other people's problems? Surely this is just a group of people giving to charity? They get the headlines because they're Coldplay. Joe Public does not care if someone they've never heard of gets someone they've never heard of out of jail.

Just chill out and accept it as a good gesture from one person to another.

But Mark By Colin [IP: 62.31.64.2] on 08/01/2003
If that's all it was, why announce it to the world?

Well... By Nick [IP: 144.173.6.80] on 08/01/2003
Approaching everything with a healthy degree of cynicism helps you to avoid being duped/taken advantage of. Yes, it's a nice gesture, but for people to think it's the last word in nice gestures is wrong. Saying Joe Public dopens't care about someone they've never heard of getting someone else they've never heard of out of jail may be true but it shouldn't be, should it? That's the whole point of being in this world, not just getting along with it and being accepting of these things, but rather trying to alter perceptions so that people DO care about things like Satpal Ram and underpriviliged communities and so on and do do something to help that goes beyond sticking a quid in a charity box and then telling everyone else so they congratulate you for being 'nice'. Doubly so given the current national/international socio-economic political climate. Don't accept second best just because it's easy when the first best isn't really that much harder but is worth so much more.

I see your point, but... By Mark [IP: 217.41.52.245] on 08/01/2003
...you don't know what lead to it appearing on the news. I'm sure Chris Martin didn't pester the record company for a press conference to announce it. He probably mentioned it in an interview, or someone else did, or, indeed, the charity concerned announced it. Don't forget that the charities need the publicity a lot more than Coldplay do.

It's easy to be cynical about this, but can't we just accept that it's a nice person doing a nice thing for someone else?

AAAARRRGGGHHH! By Nick [IP: 144.173.6.80] on 08/01/2003

Nick By Mark [IP: 217.41.52.245] on 08/01/2003
All true, but not everyone has to fulfill that role in society. It would be a very tedious world if everyone was so pro-active. It would cause more war and pain in the end. I'm not saying that everyone should stand by and ignore what's happening around them, but it's worth remembering that everyone has different beliefs and what's important to one is irrelevant to another.

Besides, it's almost certainly the press that are giving CM the big up, not him.

By DannyBoy [IP: 62.255.36.251] on 08/01/2003
Isnt it obvious why he announced it to the world? He is doing his bit by donating, but because he is famous - this also brings the issue or the charity to the public eye more than it would if no-one ever mentioned it. He is wearing the T shirt - and people see it and it DOES make them think about the charity. He is exposing the charity to people who might have never heard or thought about it. What about - celebrity "The weakest link" or "Who wants to be a millionaire" when they give to charities at the end? Should the selfish bastards just keep quiet about it and not mention the charity? I bet mentioning the charity to millions of people watching the program is more important than the couple of grand they receive from the gameshow because it brings it to peoples attention - and if someone is feeling charitable - they are more likely to give money to a charity they have heard a lot of lately - than 'Dan Sargisons decent clothing fund'. Beleive me - I reckon if Chris Martin wore a t shirt with "Give money to Dan - he has really bad clothes in his cupboards" - someone would send me some! Mighttry it actually. Do u think Danny would wear a t shirt like this? Might email the whole band later.

Mark By Colin [IP: 62.31.64.2] on 08/01/2003
Chris wore a t-shirt giving the charity the "big up," and I believe that's what started all this.

Colin By Mark [IP: 217.41.52.245] on 08/01/2003
Hardly a criminal offence, is it?

I'm more cynical than most, usually, but maybe, just MAYBE, Chris Martin wanted to do something decent. It's possible. Maybe he wants to use his public standing to help charity and this is the start? Maybe it will lead to further involvement. Noone starts at the top.

Well... By Nick [IP: 144.173.6.80] on 08/01/2003
Given the resemblance of certain parts of AROBTTH to both The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, I'd say it was because the little cunt wanted to be Bono.

Maybe Mark, maybe. By Colin [IP: 62.31.64.2] on 08/01/2003
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - time will tell ;)

However if it looks like we've got another self righteous bastard like Bono a pre-emptive strike may be in order :)

Missing: Cynical Outlook By Mark [IP: 217.41.52.245] on 08/01/2003
Please return to me at once!

By Craig [IP: 62.254.168.29] on 08/01/2003
Why the need to analyse everything? Its probably a combination of everyone spoints i the above. On a slightly different note can you remember the pedigree chum advert of circa 88? where the dogs were all running up the hill - hundreds of em? Genius