Talk:Rock Against Racism

message: This article is conveyed in such a manner that it leaves the reader with the thought that Eric Clapton and David Bowie were promoting acts of racial hate crimes in 1976. When a more factual account of events is that they expressed nationalistic views and some agreement with the views of Enoch Powell. Nationalism isn't a synonym for racism, it's a sense of conservative immigration control. Not seggregation, but cultural preservation. And it's not limited to any one ethnicity or culture. 
Also, albeit less crucial, I think calling someone's views "rhetoric" isn't objective. The inferred meaning of the word has become rather derogatory. And its use is questionable for something like an encyclopedia.
In my opinion the article as it is constitutes a defamation of character of those two artists. If an unobjective point of view is to be conveyed in the article, the opposite side of the pole should also be presented. With something such as "though some find that it was an opportunistic affair of scarcely known artists wanting to profit off the media circus involving these comments made by David Bowie and Eric Clapton". Though I think that would be even more inflammatory and improper. And objectivity would be a better policy.
Beyond these points I find myself too unfamiliar with the "Rock against racism" event to make an edit.
 To summarise what this poster has said: it's not racist it's just racist. --78.18.56.118 (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So “get the wogs out, get the coons out” is not racist.  R-i-i-i-ght. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Clapton's diatribe is widely described as a 'racist rant'. No doubt his language was inflamed by a coke-addled brain, and it sits ill with a wider view of his life and associates. It can perhaps be forgiven if not forgotten, and that doesn't stop it being a shameful, racist episode. Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflammatory and prejudice

message: The article needs to explain, I think, how a concert can be, or purport to be, "against the rise of racism". Were the concerts it mentions benefits? It needs to say. If they were, where did the money go? TheScotch (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What actually are these things, anyway?

message: This article needs some context for Americans and such. It used to be perfectly legal for Neo-Nazi parties like the National Front and the British Movement to go on TV with campaign ads (not at all like US campaign ads) during general elections. I remember as a kid watching Enoch Powell on the BBC with a Nazi flag to his left and a Union Jack to his right. There was a great deal of disaffection (to say the least) in the UK at the time. Record unemployment and Thatcherism had the Working Class down and the National Front etc. were actually getting seats in Parliament by blaming everything on the immigrants from the Commonwealth. Blah blah.
--Piepie (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certain Powell never appeared next to a 'Nazi flag' (he did after all voluntary join the army in the war against Nazism in 1939) and the NF never won any seats in Parliament.--Johnbull (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: The section about Bowie reads to be truth, but the footage sourced in source 7 (the youtube link) is clearly doctored  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.23.222 (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Bowies "Nazi" Salute 

message: There were two RAR marches and two concerts in London 1978. I went on both of them (dates me!). One concert was at Victoria Park in the East End and the other in Brockwell Park, Brixton. All a long time ago but there definitely two concerts. Probably a bit late for a link now tho.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 20:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a sentence to this effect with a link. I think Misty In Roots played at this concert too but they are not mentioned in the article. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Misty In Roots played on the back of a lorry at the first carnival (I saw them!), but weren't on the main stage 94.168.114.80 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Marches and Two Concerts 

message: my understanding of the rar is that clapton's statements were a big influence on it, but the bowie thing is entirely off base. bowie's "thin white duke" was a character, which he was acting in when he made those statements. it was meant to satirize british conservatism (and rising thatcherism), rather than to identify with it. when he said "britain was ready for fascism", he was right - and they got something close to it in thatcherism. but, that's not an endorsement of it, it's a dire analysis presented ironically from the eyes of the character he was playing. the way he played the character is actually completely consistent with the purpose of rock against racism. it's not at all dissimilar to henry rollins playing a white supremacist in a movie many years later, which is something else many people became confused by.
further, bowie was actually a very big influence on the gestating punk rock scene, both in terms of direct influence (his ronson period really defined the early british punk sound) and association (he was working with iggy pop and lou reed at the time). his brand of performance art was very influential on people like jello biafra and johnny rotten. so, i find it hard to believe that generation x or the clash or the buzzcocks weren't able to see through this and take the comments as they were intended. i've never seen any source anywhere mention this. this should really be ejected. it's less that it's libel, and it's more that it's just *wrong*.  
i have removed all references to bowie. the question is not whether he said the things he said, it's whether the british punk community understood it as satire. the idea that he was a catalyst needs to be sourced reliably to the 70s, not to a recent newspaper article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  clapton yes, bowie no. 

message: What is the point of the segment on Darby Crash? How is it relevant to the topic? It simply states that Darby Crash came to believe that he was a god which in some unspecified way relates to Clapton and Bowie's political statements.  It seems like it was just added by a fan of the Germs who really wanted to stretch to get a reference to their favorite band in. It is also unsourced, although it would remain irrelevant even if sourced.
Thumbsopposed (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darby Crash? 

message: I remember RAR as an exciting and popular movement with a great deal of sympathy amongst my peer group at the start of the 80s. Why did it wither on the vine? I remember joining the ANL around that time then being disillusioned when it led to absolutely no opportunities to engage or act. Was it because Thatcherism and things like the Miners' Strike and Falklands War became the object of activism at the time? Stub Mandrel (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the End of RAR? 

message: Yes, Bowie made his stupid fascist remarks. And did whatever the hell he did in that limo. He was doing a ton of cocaine, and living on nothing but bell peppers and skim milk. He was out of his mind.
But by 1983 he was staring down Mark Goodman at MTV, on camera, over their racist programming. That deserves mention. Especially if he's going to be mentioned in the lede next to unrepentant racist Eric Clapton, who, rather than work to redeem the ugly mistakes of his youth, is continuing to make even bigger and uglier ones. 
What he did deserves to be mentioned in the article, due to the reactions it caused and what/whom it inspired. But it needs to be contextualized in a lifetime that was far more than those ugly mistakes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowie again 

message: It's strange how RAR faded away' in the early eighties at a time when one might have expected it to continue to flourish. After all, many of the issues still are relevant today. This article really could do with some sort of explanation. Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what happened?