Post by jestertor on Aug 26, 2009 11:41:31 GMT -5
whodareswings
July 25, 2009 at 11:28 am
On April 20, 1968, British parliamentarian Enoch Powell gave his famous “Rivers Of Blood” speech in Birmingham, which struck a chord in most Britons. Powell addressed the issue of rapidly expanding non-White immigration into Britain, warning that it must be curtailed to preserve the character and heritage of the nation. Contrary to what is often claimed today, Enoch Powell and those allied with him became extremely popular following this speech.
When the Beatles returned to the studio on April 22, a new jam broke out unrehearsed in front of cameras. It began with “The Commonwealth Song,” with lyrics detailing the events from the previous days involving Enoch Powell and Conservative Party leader Edward Heath, along with the notable refrain, “You’d better get back to your Commonwealth homes.” Over the next two days it developed further into a song called “No More Pakistanis,” sung from the point of view of the millions of Britons who were coming out in support of Powell, demanding restriction of immigration into Britain. This was the song that would, with some revisions, be released as “Get Back.” These are the original lyrics from April 24, as recorded by the cameras and studio microphones for the Get Back project:
Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged. Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.
Ronan Relimun, was a Puerto Rican, living in another world, All the people ’round, say why are Puerto Ricans, livin’ in the USA.
Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged. Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.
(Instrumental)
Pretty Ado Lamb, was a Pakistani, living in another land, All the people ’round, don’t dig no Pakistanis, taking all the people’s jobs.
So get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged. Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.
(Instrumental)
Get back, get back, get back, get back. Get back, get back, get back, get back.
Meanwhile back at home, too many Pakistanis, living in a council flat. Candidate for Labour, tell us what your plan is, won’t you tell me where it’s at?
So get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged. Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.
This was a song intended to blow John Lennon’s “Revolution” out of the water in terms of a political message. In fact, Lennon was quoted as saying “It was great, a better version of Lady Madonna, you know, a real potboiler rewrite” referencing the fact that Lady Madonna had been intended as a political message.
In the end, the band rewrote the lyrics to create a more ambiguous song, though dropping the third verse, “Meanwhile back at home too many Pakistanis,” only at the last minute.
The audio and video of the original lyrics were not released until 1986. McCartney and the other remaining members were immediately attacked by the British press for their previously unknown “racist” tendencies. McCartney responded that the song had been intended only as satire, not a message by the band. However, one must wonder: “Where’s the satire?”
With strong public sentiment and support sparked by Enoch Powell’s speech, and the very real issue of mass immigration which would ultimately devastate Britain and all other Western nations, why wouldn’t Paul McCartney and the rest of the Beatles voice such opinions?
Not quite ten years later Eric Clapton declared from a Birmingham stage, “I think that we should all vote for Enoch,” calling Powell “a prophet.” The liberal establishment insists that “good” people always embrace “diversity” and non-White immigration, but the Beatles, like Clapton, are examples of men who saw a clear threat to their country and responded, however fleetingly. This is hardly the image the controlled media wants portrayed by its ‘heroes’.
I am not qualified to contest the accuracy of this, the level of irony or its lack, in the lyrics. I did internally blench at the allegation that most British people might have harboured these opinions at the time but, after a bit of soul searching, decided not to contest it.
The reason I posted this (and I do know how Lennon made reference to the song's relevance to Ono) is to posit thus: would any 'replacement' have the confidence/arrogance to hi-jack and politicise the canon so overtly? I am intrigued by the reference to Lady Madonna - they did not quite apoliticise it in my humble opinion. I don't buy that because the lyrics to these songs were toned down JPM didn't write them.
To nail my colours to the mast of the Good Raft Medusa: I think there was most probably a replacement, but only temporary. I have had more than my fill of Bill. I think there is a discernible creative arc, up and down (here, again perhaps, we do not all stand together...). I think there is also a continuity of character; he may be a Sir but he will never be a Saint. He may have been cute but there's another four letter word beginning with 'c' probably just as relevant. For a start, womanisers do not respect women. Gentlemen, and I don't mean to come across all Nivenesque, never physically abuse women - I strongly suspect he falls down on both accounts. Now, where's my tin helmet...?
July 25, 2009 at 11:28 am
On April 20, 1968, British parliamentarian Enoch Powell gave his famous “Rivers Of Blood” speech in Birmingham, which struck a chord in most Britons. Powell addressed the issue of rapidly expanding non-White immigration into Britain, warning that it must be curtailed to preserve the character and heritage of the nation. Contrary to what is often claimed today, Enoch Powell and those allied with him became extremely popular following this speech.
When the Beatles returned to the studio on April 22, a new jam broke out unrehearsed in front of cameras. It began with “The Commonwealth Song,” with lyrics detailing the events from the previous days involving Enoch Powell and Conservative Party leader Edward Heath, along with the notable refrain, “You’d better get back to your Commonwealth homes.” Over the next two days it developed further into a song called “No More Pakistanis,” sung from the point of view of the millions of Britons who were coming out in support of Powell, demanding restriction of immigration into Britain. This was the song that would, with some revisions, be released as “Get Back.” These are the original lyrics from April 24, as recorded by the cameras and studio microphones for the Get Back project:
Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged. Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.
Ronan Relimun, was a Puerto Rican, living in another world, All the people ’round, say why are Puerto Ricans, livin’ in the USA.
Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged. Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.
(Instrumental)
Pretty Ado Lamb, was a Pakistani, living in another land, All the people ’round, don’t dig no Pakistanis, taking all the people’s jobs.
So get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged. Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.
(Instrumental)
Get back, get back, get back, get back. Get back, get back, get back, get back.
Meanwhile back at home, too many Pakistanis, living in a council flat. Candidate for Labour, tell us what your plan is, won’t you tell me where it’s at?
So get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged. Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged.
This was a song intended to blow John Lennon’s “Revolution” out of the water in terms of a political message. In fact, Lennon was quoted as saying “It was great, a better version of Lady Madonna, you know, a real potboiler rewrite” referencing the fact that Lady Madonna had been intended as a political message.
In the end, the band rewrote the lyrics to create a more ambiguous song, though dropping the third verse, “Meanwhile back at home too many Pakistanis,” only at the last minute.
The audio and video of the original lyrics were not released until 1986. McCartney and the other remaining members were immediately attacked by the British press for their previously unknown “racist” tendencies. McCartney responded that the song had been intended only as satire, not a message by the band. However, one must wonder: “Where’s the satire?”
With strong public sentiment and support sparked by Enoch Powell’s speech, and the very real issue of mass immigration which would ultimately devastate Britain and all other Western nations, why wouldn’t Paul McCartney and the rest of the Beatles voice such opinions?
Not quite ten years later Eric Clapton declared from a Birmingham stage, “I think that we should all vote for Enoch,” calling Powell “a prophet.” The liberal establishment insists that “good” people always embrace “diversity” and non-White immigration, but the Beatles, like Clapton, are examples of men who saw a clear threat to their country and responded, however fleetingly. This is hardly the image the controlled media wants portrayed by its ‘heroes’.
I am not qualified to contest the accuracy of this, the level of irony or its lack, in the lyrics. I did internally blench at the allegation that most British people might have harboured these opinions at the time but, after a bit of soul searching, decided not to contest it.
The reason I posted this (and I do know how Lennon made reference to the song's relevance to Ono) is to posit thus: would any 'replacement' have the confidence/arrogance to hi-jack and politicise the canon so overtly? I am intrigued by the reference to Lady Madonna - they did not quite apoliticise it in my humble opinion. I don't buy that because the lyrics to these songs were toned down JPM didn't write them.
To nail my colours to the mast of the Good Raft Medusa: I think there was most probably a replacement, but only temporary. I have had more than my fill of Bill. I think there is a discernible creative arc, up and down (here, again perhaps, we do not all stand together...). I think there is also a continuity of character; he may be a Sir but he will never be a Saint. He may have been cute but there's another four letter word beginning with 'c' probably just as relevant. For a start, womanisers do not respect women. Gentlemen, and I don't mean to come across all Nivenesque, never physically abuse women - I strongly suspect he falls down on both accounts. Now, where's my tin helmet...?
