Santanagate, if only for a moment, left me in a dilemma.
As a journalist and very amateur musician, I empathize with artists who are able to use their talents to create, whether it is a painting, poem or song, even if their tastes are not the same as mine. As I require for my work, whether on this blog or in my day job as a newspaperman, artists can only fulfill their vision, be their best, if they are allowed to express themselves free of limits or threats from outside forces, whether it is government or their hitherto fans. I would never tell Gloria and Emilio Estefan what they can sing or who can play on their records, and would defend their right to express themselves however they see fit.
But I am Cuban, and more importantly, a student of history. So using the same freedom that allows the Estefans to play with whomever they want, I deplore their decision to collaborate with Che-enthusiast Carlos Santana on a project, the poignantly named 90 Millas, that supposedly honors the Cuban traditions that Che Guevara did so much to destroy.
Some may see these as contradictory positions. I celebrate the power of free expression, and the importance of protecting it, and then join the chorus of those ready to forever ban the Estefans from their CD collections, for reasons other than musical preference.
The two, however, are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the freedom that allows the Estefans to make a stupid decision like hiring Santana, has added value if it is subsequently required to withstand the scrutiny of the marketplace of ideas. In America, you are free to write or sing whatever you want, with whomever you want, but with that freedom, comes consequences.
The Estefans have learned that, even if a statement they released earlier this week seems to suggest that they and their buddy Carlos, and not their Cuban fans — each one of us, a victim of Che Guevara — deserve an apology.
Until late last year, I was part, if only half-heartedly so, of the boycott of the Dixie Chicks that started in 2003, after lead singer Natalie Maines went overseas and dissed President Bush and, worse than that, our shared home state of Texas. I had been a big fan of their music, but after Maines went off on the president, who soon afterwords would lead the nation to war in Iraq, I just couldn't stomach them.
Eventually, though, my distaste subsided and I was once again hooked on their music when I heard one of their newest records. I was ready to make nice.
Generally, I try to separate an artist's politics from their work, realizing, and accepting that I may never agree politically with an artist who never fails to entertain me. But I don't begrudge anyone who cannot, or will not, make such a distinction. It's your money, and if you don't want to support their career because of their politics, that's the price they pay. You don't owe them anything.
Whether I can forgive the Estefans, like I did the Dixie Chicks, I do not know. Their sin is far more severe, far more indefensible, far more personal.
Natalie Maines ridiculed the president, always a fair target, although I wish she hadn't done it overseas.
The Estefans ignored their history, and mine, and seemingly presumed it wouldn't matter because, well, Santana is a heck of a guitar player and might help with the sale of a few extra CDs. It's all about the dinero, regardless of who gets hurt in the process.
That's their right, and I will defend their right to be wrong. I won't even demand that they cut from their album any song on which Santana performed.
But until they apologize and explain what they were thinking, I won't be buying their new record.
Recent Comments