Thursday, 10 December 2009
-
The Hypocrisy Of Punk Culture
(Source)
Disclaimer: I understand right after this, I am going to probably get plenty of nasty comments and have plenty of little kids threatening to defecate down my throat and pound me with their swizzle sticks. I'm here to tell you, kick rocks. This post is too mature for you to understand.
Punk, to me, is a genre or a culture that very often eats itself.
It was supposed to be the aftermath of being exiled by "normal" society, and an embrace of what other people in society call mistakes. In other words, punk embraces everything they can't be in society: abnormal, outside the lines, complete screwups, and complete failures on the parts of those that raised or educated them. Because they know in some way they are not always ordinary, and very much think for themselves.
The problem is punks seem to think that the same sound, same dress code or the same attitude of punk is the key, when it has mostly faded into being as ordinary as the things the claim to despise. In fact, the idea of punk was that anyone who did it or joined in the culture was not even cool or couldn't be cool. In turn, those who could relate or build a community around it turned something underrated and small into "cool". What irony, huh?
For example, skating to punk, dying your hair, being mean: that is the typical act of punks. Now, I know the idea of punk is to be against the grain, but more and more, kids are trying to adopt this, thinking this is how you go against the ordinary. There has been plenty of bands that do it well, just by calling out the whole culture and noted it for what it become: Dead Kennedys and NoFX both were well-known punk rock bands that dared to speak out against the genre, because it has become samey or it never really lasts.
Where a lot of bands were liberal, Johnny Ramone being one of the first recognizable Republican punks to ever turn people's hypotheses of what punk is or became right on its head. Where more punks created Rock Against Bush, he was one of the punks to openly support George W. Bush. Clearly, "always" and "usually" isn't in the vocabulary of those who really understand the culture and the protocol of punk.
Because of this, every time an emotional person (emo), or a Christian person or anyone that does the exact opposite of what punk was in the beginning, punks living by the old-fashioned rules sport quite an elitist attitude, when in the grand scheme of things, Christian punks, Ukranian punks, queer punks or even (aye caramba) Nazi punks understand the meaning of punks goes against the fashion of such genre.
Every person who got interested in the genre are so fixated with the speed guitar and drums, the rebellion hair and all that they forgot the whole point of punk being born was because kids out there are being teased or chastised for what they are, and this was their home to be themselves, and to remind other people, assuming they care, that this is what they are. Maybe, even try and prove that across the world, there are people just like them. It was a safe haven for people who have been dissed, beaten, rejected or undermined and need a community that just happens to be equal opportunity, whether most of us liked it or not.
So, if that was the case, how did punk some of the time become a little (oh, I don't know) elitist or normal?
Mancouch Says: Punk became normal because of the emos and Christians and such jumping on board. Christians and Republicans are part of mainstream society. They aren't creating their own subculture, they are just appropriating the look and sound for their purposes. As you yourself said this is what punk has become. But it is because the normal people joined. Nazi punk is an oxymoron. Just because it goes against the grain of the genre does not mean it is living up to the true meaning of the genre because simply by being a Nazi they are making sure that what was supposed to be a safe haven for misfits isn't one. Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. Queer punks is a natural fit and when punks exclude people because of their geographic region that shows elitism, but it's more of a defense mechanism because of the Republicans, Hot Topic shoppers, Christians, Emos, and Nazis that want to appropriate their community's icons and emblems for establishment purposes. That said Punk does eat itself because success is deemed evil. Sorry for the long one this time, but this post hit my sweet spot.
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to mancouch's Mancouch Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in mancouch's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: mynameisblueskye@xanga
- Name: Blue Skye
- Location: Boston, Massachusetts
- About Me: What should I reveal? I'm African-American, my astro signs are Scorpio and Dragon, I'm left-handed, and pretty candid with my opinions and thoughts. I love music, fruitful conversation, and a bunch of other things. Though, if you sign on here expecting the ilk of everyone's blogs,...well, you'll be a bit disappointed. Everything I post is me going raw with my subjects. So, if you dare addme, fasten your seatbelts. It is going to be quite a ride. Anything else you want to know, talk to me on AIM or Yahoo. Take a look at my profile to find out what my AIM and Yahoo! names are. I also have a policy for adding people. I check your profile, read your blogs, and maybe look at your photos, and then add you. IF you have friends lock, please send me a profile or a sample of your blog to be added.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 50 Views: 0 65989 Comments: 0 1424 View all posts by mynameisblueskye@xanga
Comments (118)
um...okay..
I think there is one movie that explains what you said:
SLC Punk. (good movie too)
good post
now in music there are things like christian rap, and christian pop, and of course christian punk. we call it punk because that is what hard core heavy metal music is called. what else should we called christian hard core. that sound like a sex tape. just let music be what it wants to be okay
I realized that the problem I actually have with punk now that I'm older and able to see it is that for a genre that prides itself on focusing rejecting what society wants, it's an exclusively white genre. Makes no sense to me. *very biased hip hop fan*
You don't quite know what you're talking about...just because you're on the outside looking in. It's easy to see all of the hypocrisies because of how popular punk is...not what the core is.
Kind of like if I pointed to Soulja Boy as a reputable source for the ideals of hip-hop.
@salvatruca_stalking_havok13@xanga - punk and hiphop are actually very similar in a lot of ways. Difference being that punk is based on the rejection of all that comes before it and hiphop is based off of building on that which came before it.
I want to be punk so I can eat myself and hit the sweet spot too.
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but I think the problems with the modern "punk" scene go deeper than the poseurs. The problem is that punk - like the "hippie" culture of the 60s and 70s - has been turned into a commodity. The Merchants of Cool is a documentary that addresses a lot of this (you can watch it online). This commodified "punk" culture is of course diluted and has lost a lot of the social and political critique it once had.
I suppose, like a lot of subcultures, it comes down to what gets defined as punk - is it the outer images like liberty spikes and loud guitars and incomprehensible lyrics? Or does punk mean something more - like a DIY attitude, a commitment to social justice (through anarchism, usually, or atleast leftist reforms), and the desire to truly accept the rejects of society?
Also, all movements end up factionalising, and I think Mancouch should have differentiated between Christian punks (in the hypercommodified sense) and anarchist/leftist punks who are Christians. As for queer punks - I can't comment too much (not queer and only punk in the sense that I'm radically leftist and like to wear ties and plaid skirts), but this was written by a trans man involved in the punk scene.
Interesting post!
@noree_n@xanga - My thoughts exactly, lol.... I'd already lost interest after the "disclaimer"...
punk is dead... i'm sorry, but it is... it died with the last great bands of punk...
irregardless, the image of 'punk' has changed so drastically - it basically doesn't exist anymore... since the Dead Kennedy's reign and the rise of NoFx, there has been few instances where punk was truly exhibited...
and little emo kids who think you're punk and hardcore - go f*ck yourselves, get a life...
i would love for REAL punk to be reborn, but we must simply remember the days when it did exist, and love it for all it brought... RIP PUNK!
@salvatruca_stalking_havok13@xanga - This is true, and have you noticed that the political ideologies that punks like tend to also be white and male-dominated (anarchism)? But then when you look at hiphop there's *a lot* of entrenched misogyny, particularly in the mainstream.
@nprospect - Exactly. It's why I don't understand why the genre is not more inclusive. Hip hop is inclusive in some ways, but I haven't seen many examples of that in punk (well, through my superficial skimmings at least; I could be wrong after all).
@envisionedlight@aol.com - Yea, not going to lie, hip hop has it's problems. Early hip hop wasn't as sexist (or blantantly homphobic for that matter). Now, you have to dig deep or ignore the ugliness. :(
@salvatruca_stalking_havok13@xanga - It's not exclusively white. It's true it's mostly white, but the one of the few principles punk is actually built on is anti-racism. Plus if you like punk you like bad brains. I suggest you check them out.
@nprospect - Hot damn, they're not bad. I was meaning to broaden my musical horizons. Thanks for the rec!
i mean...it depends on what evolution of punk rock you're looking at. if we start with say...europe..the sex pistols kicked punk rock off....but they were a put together boy band picked for their looks and not their talent...people tend to forget that and it's funny. so, sure. punk rock started shallow and still is.
but i think a lot of in between punk wasn't "the kids being made fun of," since they drew attention to themselves, but the kids who had some sort of political statement to say. republican, democrat, anarchist, whatever. which was a pretty cool subsection of punk.
it's hard to stereotype a genre all together as one thing though...because it's always a shallow reading no matter how true things might be for one part of it, it's never gonna be static across everything.
i don't think you can argue emo made punk normal....because emo pretty much ate punk and is a joke and makes punk a joke now. there always were christian and non-christian punk bands...so i don't get that either.
but that's just my opinion. and i have flashy colored hair...so you never know about me...:-p
Absolutely.
Rock on.
@envisionedlight@aol.com - that first paragraph has such a good point about ALL subcultures/countercultures- they are very good potential markets. When talking about the 60s my dad always mentions a quote something like, "the key point to remember is that there were X number of young, free-spirited baby boomers with millions of irresponsible dollars to spend." You can't really blame anyone for trying to capitalize on the opportunities they see in groups and trends people create, but I think it really does undermine the uniqueness and personable-ness that made being part of the group appealing in the first place (as for punk, well it's a very different and interesting definition of "personable" hehe.) It's a tough thing to handle when you are trying to find an identity for yourself or a place to fit in.
agreed. The old way of punk is dead. Skateboarding and crazy hair and other punk lifestlyes now are just another subculture of society and makes millions of dollars. Unlike punks of old would make their own clothes and whatnot, Teens now think that just cuz they shop at hot topic are punks or rebels.
Really, the only thing that even comes close to the old punk ways of music is indie music. Most indie music listeners never like mainstream music and listen to what they want and if you make fun of them for it all they really say is screw you.
Nice post. This is pretty true. I listened to a lot of punk in my younger days, but I grew up on heavy metal (the first album I ever bought with my own money was Ozzy). So, punk was sort of in that same vein. I was younger, so I wasn't really listening to it for the message that it was getting across. Good music though, or at least the older stuff is.
Well, I think you're forgetting what punk really is and it's not a a type of haircut no matter what your politics are. I feel that's what you are saying is "...well I'm a Christian punk because I have a pink mohawk and blah, blah, blah..." because you can't exclude someone based on someone's supposed politics, like Johnny Ramone for instance, because he voted Republican. The Ramones will always be punk, not because Johnny Ramone voted Republican all of his life, though because Johnny Ramone was a really interesting, "take no shit" and a very self effacing, kind of guy. Just watch "The Ramones: End of the Century" or "The Ramones: RAW" and you'll get the idea. Joe Strummer strangely enough, later in his life, went back on his irritation with hippies saying "...we're all hippies...".
I mean "punks" are known to love reggae, disco, it goes beyond a fashion statement of braces and combat boots. Dub is punk, house is punk, techno, it's how you do it, not so much what you look like, unless you're doing theater. And while appearance is important, it's not meant to ask you to walk up to someone you don't know and expect them to relate to you. Both Iggy Pop and Henry Rollins have just amazingly visible, physical personalities, but both Iggy Pop and Henry Rollins have been able to pull that off so to speak because they never gave up on who they were as people, musicians, poets not "punks". So, punk is definitely not the same old thing over and over again. It just seems that way because of the Vans Warped tour. Which is ok, though punk goes way, way, way back it just doesn't seem that way. That's why we like it.
i only know a few people that have the "classic punk" look like in that picture you posted, so saying it's become "normal" is definitely a stretch. kids who wear hollister and aeropostale are normal. and they are the ones that are everywhere.
punk has gotten bigger (sort of), but it's by no means the mainstream. i think you are confusing all the kids shopping at Hot Topic and the like as punks, and everyone knows they aren't. those are nu-metal kids for the most part.
the best "punks" i know, you wouldn't have much of a clue by looking at them how much of the punk spirit they really have. and they don't even feel it necessary to go around advertising themself as a punk. they just live their life being themselves and holding onto everything they believe in. THAT is punk. not how many hair colors you have. and i think people have come to recognize that, that's why it has changed.
punk is not dead, it's just morphed into different subgenres, like hardcore and post-punk and so on. but those who truly love and listen to these types of music are still a minority as far as i can tell. the real problem is that people coming up nowadays think that bands like sum-41 (are they still around?) and paramore are punk, and they clearly aren't. they are just pop music with a somewhat edgier sound.
metal is completely different than punk music. I can't stand punk. ugh.
you did a shitty job at describing punk.
@xtreme_350@xanga - haha, it is quite dead. well more like, in hibernation. just wait, when the hipster phase is over, it'll come around again. trend, such as history, repeats itself.
well, of course it won't be the same. but i think you catch my point.
Punk is alive and well. Deal with it.