From: sastxb@weevil.unx.sas.com (Thomas Bednarek)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Lennon and the radical left
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:26:55 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sastxb@weevil.unx.sas.com
X-Bytes: 3163

In article <1992Apr16.162727.28456@menudo.uh.edu>, edc@evolution.bchs.uh.edu (edward s. chen) writes:
>
>So, my question is WHY?  Why is the radical, and violent left suddenly looking
>to muddy the historical Lennon waters again?  
>

	A lot of people feel disallusioned with what's going on
in today's world. Maybe some of them feel that the last time they
felt hope was when Lennon was around (or at least his ideals). 

	I strongly disagree with the association between "radical"
and "violent"; clearly one can radically seek change without being
violent. I may have misunderstood you, though. Would it be better
if just the "radical" left muddied the waters?

>
>(and why are they seemingly ignoring Yoko?  Who is still quite alive and well,
>and was involved in all this to the *exact* same degree John was?)
>

	I don't think judging "degree" of involvement is a fruitful
activity, as it is almost entirely subjective. I know some people
that would disagree with your assessment, though.

	I will say this much: from my experience (albeit limited),
people do not like Yoko. I don't know why, I can't justify their
arguments, but Edward is the only person I've ever met that vigorously
defends her. Not her person, which I also will defend, but her music,
her art, her philosopy ...

	*sigh* In other words, Edward, a magazine with a cover of John
sells a hell of a lot more than the same mag with Yoko. I'm not saying
I like it.

>
>Why re-gurgitate the Lennon murder again, and again.
>

	Senseless loss (if that's what it was) always begs an explanation.
Unless you're a serious fatalist, you want to know why John was taken away.
I don't blame anyone for being a bit anal retentive on this topic; it pisses
me off to this day. It's really hard to accept that he died for *no* good
reason (as if a CIA murder would be a "good" reason).
 
>
>When asked, John's assasin vehemently denies any CIA
>coercion leading to the murder.  I say, unless some solid evidence comes
>forward to indicate "programming", let's leave it as is.
>

	Does this follow? *I* feel that only through knowledge (or complete
ignorance) can true peace of mind be accomplished. What you're proposing
is that I be satisfied with the explanation of the one who shot Lennon; I'm
not. 

>
>Ultimately, I'm as sickened by the rampant revisionism propogated by the left,
>as I was by the lies and half-truths propogated by Albert Goldman.
>

	Peace - they have their place.

>
>John was
>mostly a peace activist, and briefly a radical, but he never strayed from the
>truism that creating death and destruction is not the civilized way to bring
>about change.
>

	"dontcha know that you count me out - in"

	Nowadays, few people argue for death and destruction. This argument
is quite a bit different than asking why the "radical, and violent left" use
Lennon's image, though. I find one of the most attractive things about John (and
the Beatles) is their ability to span different groups, ages and idealogies. Some
of these groups I don't respect, but that's irrelevant; they get to love, hate,
and use John (just like Nike).

	So do you, of course ...

					Tom 
					(sastxb@vms.sas.com)