Music Monday ~ Country Prejudice

A few words I wrote at Quora last week, in answer to the question "Why do people hate country music so much?"

I wonder if people do care enough about country music to actually hate it - it's a genre that is just not to everyone’s taste - and that’s fine.

As it happens, I’m a country music fan, but I do not fit any of the labels regularly attached to those who enjoy the genre. I’m British born (so no roots in the southern states), I’m left as left can be politically, in no way conservative, and I’m neither racist nor sexist.

I discovered country music back in the late 1980s and 1990s, not in the USA but in a vacation resort in the Spanish governed Canary Islands, which lie off the west coast of Africa, and it was being sung by a Londoner! Hows that for a mix?

I fell in love with country music. Back home in Yorkshire I began collecting albums, buying country music magazines, and learning what I could about it, from wherever I could.

It has to be said, however, that the current style of country has veered away and is not to my own taste. When I say I love country music, I love the styles of Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, Patsy Cline, Keith Whitley, Kris Kristofferson, John Conlee, George Strait, and their likes - Garth Brooks just manages to scrape in to that group!

The fact that I eventually found myself living in the USA, and in a state where country music is part of the wallpaper, was coincidental - I think!

There is some prejudice against country music in the USA, whether it descends to the level of hatred is doubtful; it is routinely ridiculed and derided by music snobs, however. I found country music in a place where prejudice against it didn't exist - and that made all the difference. Stock answer as to the prejudice against country is "it's white, it's racist..blah blah". If Charley Pride, Darius Rucker and other black country singers were open-minded and enlightened enough to breach the perceived divide, then there is, and should be, always hope, but progress is slow. Prejudice and division are what The Powers That Be want of us, it distracts us from giving more attention to their ongoing dastardly deeds.

Here's Gene Watson, another of my favourites, and one I've actually managed to see performing live! This song says it for me - but still doesn't go far enough, for as well as spreading from "sea to shining sea" this music has crossed oceans in several directions. The song ought to be better known. I haven't found anyone other than Gene singing it - why? And why is prejudice so hard to dislodge? Even this song's lyrics were hard to find online. I eventually found them, but only with chord notes added for guitar players - had to clean it up before posting.

This country's Bigger than Texas
Recorded by Gene Watson
Written by Hugh Prestwood

Standing on a corner in Manhattan
I finally flagged a taxi down
And as I climbed into the back seat
I heard a more familiar sound
From the radio came gliding through
The sliding Nashville pedal steel
And as the driver took me riding
His fingers danced upon the wheel.

This country's bigger than Texas
It's bigger than Nashville Tennessee
It reaches border to border
It stretches shinning sea to sea
This country’s got no boundaries

A redneck farmer out of Macon
Met a lady lawyer from LA
They did not have a thing in common
Or at least it seemed that way
And then the jukebox started playing
Just your average country song
And both their bodies started swaying
They danced the two step all night long.

This country's bigger than Texas
It's bigger than Nashville Tennessee
It reaches border to border
It stretches shinning sea to sea
This country’s got no boundaries
This country's got no boundaries

The Menace of Stereotyping

A need to label, or resort to stereotyping seems to be part of human nature - must have something to do with the way our human brains are wired. Television and the internet have, inevitably, spread more and more examples of stereotyping to a much bigger slice of the population, to people who wouldn't, or couldn't, have thought them up for themselves. Yet TV and the internet also offer evidence, if sought, that stereotypes are nothing but misleading and potentially dangerous generalisations.

Generalisations are not always a bad thing. Wiki tells us: "A generalization (or generalisation) of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria. It is a foundational element of logic and human reasoning..." It's easy to forget, though, that a generalisation is just that, and, human nature being what it is, a generalisation often contains, or gathers in the re-telling, embedded exaggeration.

An article carried in the UK's Daily Telegraph some years ago raised my hackles at the time sufficiently to post a wee rant. Helen Kirwan-Taylor's We're Having a Special Relationship discussed Anglo-American marriages.

I have personal experience of one of these, but the way the article portrays the situation is nowhere near reality for me, nor, I guess for the majority of people in Anglo-American marriages. The piece was filled with class-ridden, pretentious stereotypical nonsense. But then, I don't live in New York, and have never lived in London, both cities figured prominently in the article. Some Americans, and Britons, need to be reminded that New York is not America, and London is not Britain. The writer needed enlightening that hardly any US Americans or Britons fit patterns described.

The article, in common with many, leans heavily on stereotyping for quick, easy thumbnail sketches of people or situations: it's nothing but lazy journalistic shorthand. A tiny grain of truth may be present, but smothered beneath misconceptions, exaggerations and generalities. Using stereotypes saves the writer extra words and extra effort. This kind of shorthand stereotyping encourages readers and listeners to form opinions which can eventually develop into prejudice, then lead to discrimination and worse: dangerous, unless we remain aware of exactly what is going on.

In astrology proper, archetypes replace stereotypes. The existence of archetypes imprinted within the human psyche was proposed first by Carl Jung. There's a set of short pieces about Carl Jung's theories written in layman's language, by the Zodiac Master.

In everyday astrology the danger of stereotyping clearly exists. Referring to someone as "a Libra" or "a Leo" etc. is misleading, and saddles that person with a stereotype, which could be quite unwarranted. I've found it preferable to describe someone (if someone needs to be described/labelled in a couple of words) as "a Libra-type" or "a Leo-type", but even that is stereotyping. Once past the Sun sign stage of astrology it's practically impossible to indulge in any kind of shorthand - each person is unique. I think this is why I continue to cringe each time I read a "a Virgo" or "an Aquarian" etc.

The difference between archetypes and stereotypes is vast. I tend to think of a family tree image to clarify the differences : an archetype is placed in the topmost position; related icons through the ages on the branches immediately beneath; below them come a variety of stereotypes; lower still are the jokes, prejudices and bigotry encountered, thanks to stereotyping. Archetypes represent the original, perfect example of any given aspect of human experience - the pattern, the template, recognisable to all humans. The stereotype represents an opinion, often an over-simplification or caricature emphasising particular factors which support whatever prejudice the writer or speaker upholds.

I recall once reading an observation that: "An archetype is Marilyn Monroe, a stereotype is the dumb blonde." But to be accurate, Marilyn Monroe isn't the archetype, she is the icon of an archetype, an icon belonging to 20th century and beyond. Earlier icons: Cleopatra or Helen of Troy ? The textbook label of the archetype these women represented was, I think, "The Temptress". The "dumb blonde" stereotype (played up by Marilyn for the cameras) has fuelled countless jokes about blonde-haired women, fairly harmless, I guess - unless you happened to be a golden-haired beauty with a science (or any other) PhD.

From French philosopher Jacques Ellul:

“(Propaganda) proceeds by psychological manipulations, character modifications, by creation of stereotypes useful when the time comes - The two great routes that this sub-propaganda takes are the conditioned reflex and the myth”

and from former US Representative Tim Holden:

The Holocaust illustrates the consequences of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on a society. It forces us to examine the responsibilities of citizenship and confront the powerful ramifications of indifference and inaction.

Homosexuality, Astrology, Prejudice.

The issue of identifying homosexuality in a natal chart, and the issue of homosexuality in general were mentioned, in passing, in comments here a few days ago. For any curious passing reader relevant comments are HERE.

My view is that gender cannot be identified in a natal chart, and neither can sexual preferences. To check myself - I could be wrong - I looked around the net for information and views.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's a mountain of rubbish out there the size of Everest!

I did come across a sensible and very detailed investigation of the topic at Astro-Revelations: Gay Astrology ?

The author's conclusion echoes my own. This is how the piece concludes after having examined written work by such luminaries as Liz Greene, Stephen Arroyo, Francis Sakoian & Louis S Acker, and several other professional astrologers ~~

In conclusion I would suggest that searching for a homosexual signature in the natal chart is a complete waste of time and quite irrelevant. This search in itself seems implicitly homophobic. There is absolutely no consensus of opinion amongst astrologers about it. The multitude of astrological signatures that have been suggested are just hearsay and are not backed up by any serious empirical evidence.

There is no evidence or authentic tradition that the hard aspects (square, opposition and sometimes conjunction ) between Mars/Venus and the outer planets are more likely to be linked to homosexuality than heterosexuality.

The fact that astrologers have suggested this link in the past speaks volumes about the prevalent ill-informed prejudices against gay and lesbian people.

Moreover, the search for an astrological signature for homosexuality presupposes that it is abnormal in some way. The fact that this search has been spectacularly unsuccessful speaks for itself. Sexual orientation like race, religion and gender cannot be detected in the chart; the chart does not judge whether a person is normal or abnormal and neither should we.

The same dynamics exist in homosexual relationships as well as heterosexual ones. The planetary energies are ultimately beyond gender and belong to us all.

Hear hear!!

What might well be identifiable in a natal chart is a predisposition to prejudices of one sort or another - prejudice against gays included. Look for narrow-mindedness, a judgmental nature, strictness, structure, regimentation = astrological Saturn and the way it relates to other personal planets.

Stonewall, Prejudice, Astrology......

We watched a DVD of the movie "Milk" a while back and ever since, I've been juggling with ideas for writing something about gay issues, or about Harvey Milk, probably the most famous figure in the struggle against gay prejudice in the USA. Or, I wondered, how about the astrology of the Stonewall Riots - which occurred just 40 years ago, 28 June 1969. As so often though, I find that the pros have "been there, done that". Why wouldn't they?


An article by astrologer Eric Meyers, Lactose Tolerance: Harvey Milk & Gay Acceptance, covers Harvey Milk's natal chart.

Madam Lichtenstein, at The Starry Eye has written about the astrology of the Stonewall Riots (here).

During my searches I also found a very interesting piece, based on a lecture given last year by astrologer Lee Lehman:
Lee Lehman Draws Parallels Between Astrologers and Gays.

This is a thought I'd never considered before. I'm not a professional astrologer, so maybe it doesn't affect me - yet really it does. I could dare to adjust the premise to be "parallels between prejudice against astrology and prejudice against homosexuality". I don't accept that the relative seriousness of the two areas of prejudice are anywhere near comparable. Prejudice against astrology is a minor problem compared with gay prejudice, which is capable of spoiling the lives of others - something I'd say is evil. Yep, evil!

I have, on occasion, felt sheepish about mentioning astrology in conversation. I don't feel ashamed of my interest, I mainly want to avoid ridicule of my pet subject. I'm not normally afraid of voicing my views on tricky topics: politics or religion, but when it comes to astrology, I have to feel I'm on very friendly ground before I'll even say the word. So, in a very minor way, this is the kind of feeling many gays must have, I guess.

I gather, from some of the comments which follow the article quoting Lee Lehman's lecture, that there's a certain amount of elitism (my pet hate) going on in astrological circles, especially in the attitude displayed towards Sun sign astrologers. Astro guys ought to stick together. There are all kinds of roads into astrology, none is better than another.

From here on I shall remember this article, remember the struggles of our gay friends, which are ongoing, and stop being such a wimp about mentioning astrology. If young Adam Lambert can stand in front of TV cameras, and a Rolling Stone interviewer and say "I am what I am....I am gay and proud" - I can stand before anybody and say, "Astrology works, I enjoy using it, prejudice against it is unfounded and unfair."