One In A Million being erased from history

[BangoSkank]

On 5/11/2018 at 4:52 AM, DieselDaisy said:

I told you I'm about the most un-political correct person on earth. To simply talk in a political correct manner is like a red rag to a bull with me (especially if it is in an estuary accent haha). ''Ee' quality n' Dye versity'', 'Elf N' Saef' Tee''. I've been forced to attend their courses. I hate their rubbish. I hate their newspaper, The Guardian. I hate their sour hatchet faces and their humourless dispositions.

I have made my feelings clear about ''One in a Million'' on multiple occasions here: it is hypocritical and putrid garbage (great guitar solo mind). But all this does is produce the Streisand Effect. People will be alerted to the omission of the track and consciously seek it out, either by downloading or picking up a cheap copy of Lies. In England we had the video nasties, banned films (we had heavy film censorship in those days), and every kid would go to excessive lengths to seek these films out even though most of them were trash. The very act of censoring publicised the thing. 

Similarly Rose tried to ban his fat memes, cue, a proliferation of yet more fat memes!

But it is their work of course. They can delete it if they want. 

I completely agree with this post, though I personally don't hate the song. "One In A Million" is not an endorsement of bigotry, but an honest look what he saw growing up: small-minded, xenophobic, angry people and how they'd react moving to a culturally diverse and over-populated big city. It's not pretty, but that shit is out there. It's good to have art about it.

Sure, I don't like the use of the n-word, but, and this is the key point that I think people miss: I'm not supposed to like the song. Just like I'm not supposed to like Michelle's mom being addicted to heroin or her daddy working in porno. I'm listening to the song because it's harsh, raw, and real. The band is not endorsing how awful Michelle's life is, but singing about a very grim reality of what's out there.

I completely understand Axl's impulse in wanting to remove it, but it's not helpful in the way they wants it to be. Should we just remove any piece of art because ugly words are mentioned in it? Imagine if we removed American Psycho from libraries because of its absolutely deplorable depiction of the killing of a black homeless man (among other things)? Not only would we no longer have the book or movie, we'd be missing the point of it entirely (that it's a condemnation of those things).  

Art about a subject will help us to think about a subject. Removing it because it's uncomfortable doesn't help anyone.

And you are 100% right that it creates a curiosity in people who now want to hunt it down and listen to it. 

I'm also a purist and want the full history of the band in my collection - the good, the bad, and the ugly. Now that they've removed something I'm a little less interested in it. I'll still buy it, but I'm a bit disappointed.

All that said, they can do whatever they want. It's their music, but I don't have to buy it. 

[Chris 55]

6 hours ago, Blackstar said:

 

He did. 

From what I've understood, it was written by someone in the Beach Boys and recorded by Manson.

 

That's what Axl believed anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_at_Your_Game,_Girl 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Chris 55

[Blackstar]

6 minutes ago, Chris 55 said:

From what I've understood, it was written by someone in the Beach Boys and recorded by Manson.

 

That's what Axl believed anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_at_Your_Game,_Girl 

Yeah, Axl said he believed that (Slash said something along those lines too). I don't know if they were honest but, regardless, they came to discover that it was actually written by Manson. And it was.

[Ratam]

4 hours ago, Blackstar said:

"Axel Rose is a dick. I hate him" 

Mostly because of the Trump references. Trump supporters are going off on the writer in the comments.

The few i read not was Trump comments.

[DeadSlash]

 

[Steve J from UK GUNS]

On 5/4/2018 at 2:35 PM, mr-fukaji said:

 

No, I completely get it. It's Guns n Roses, they're very easy to get, they're a big dumb rock band. That's why I still very firmly believe it's a withering, anemic piece of shit dressed up by a guy who needed a mealy mouthed excuse to cover his ignorance, which he thankfully realized. 

Elton John weighs in on this argument with: "Never in a million years did I think Axl was homophobic. I’ll fight for anyone who is misunderstood and misrepresented by the idiots out there."

Axl was never homphobic or racist. He didn't love the police, but that's the only thing he had in common with the character he was presenting in the song which wasn't meant to be himself, it was the red-neck farm boys he ran away from in Indiana. 

This song is an attack on them, their ignorence and intolerence which is every bit as relevant now (probably more-so in the USA) than it was in 1988. I think it's really intelligent. I also love how it separates with a sharp knife the idiots from the more open-minded. An 'apparently' racist song that the liberals (like this one) will write on a forum to defend. Whole thing's fucking genius the more you look at it. 

That's why it's really fucking depressing that this song has been 'censored' from the box set. It's a win for the morons. Well done morons, you just dumbed-down the world a little bit extra!

[Steve J from UK GUNS]

Of course there's the possibility that the song might simply not have been approved for release in 2018, with the controls on acceptable lyrical content being far tighter now than back in 1988. As such, it might have been out of the band's hands altogether. Unlikely though, and I'm sure they'd have used it as a powerful PR opportunity if that was the case... 

[killuridols]

So is OIAM now an anthem anti-racism, pro-gay and pro-immigration??

Ahahahhaahhaaha 

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

On ‎12‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 12:53 PM, killuridols said:

Yes, Axl told that story about him killing dogs during the China Exchange conference he gave in the UK in 2016.

I still think that even if it was solely for publicity, OIAM is over the top when it comes to do something "just for publicity". You need a real high degree of internal hate to write something like that.

I guess it is a female writer but the name is deceiving. I liked the article. Good arguments and examples used.

Lol, it's a 200+ pages thread plus the Part 1, which is locked. That one has an index in the first page that could help finding topics.

Yes, that's always been my point. People are people, regardless of their skin color, nationality or sexual tendencies. And Axl probably learned the biggest lesson of his life when he met Beta.

Isn't it ironic how he ended up embracing the immigrants and how it is a family of immigrants the only family he will ever have?

That's certainly the cosmos sending him the biggest of F--- Y--'s 

Thanks. I don't think Axl had a 'problem with immigrants', judging by his 'natural relationship' with Slash. He seemed to have a more 'natural problem' with Stevie Adler from their autobiographies; looking down on him and physically attacking him. Adler is from Jewish descent, but looks like the archetypal California kid, and ironically Jewish people weren't one of the demographics criticised in Million!

I think he just thought he could write songs from what he thought, or had thought at some time when on the streets feeling he was getting hassled, and thought about again when wanting to write a song; and saw other people doing in punk or rap.

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, Axl's Agony Aunt said:

Thanks. I don't think Axl had a 'problem with immigrants', judging by his 'natural relationship' with Slash. He seemed to have a more 'natural problem' with Stevie Adler from their autobiographies; looking down on him and physically attacking him. Adler is from Jewish descent, but looks like the archetypal California kid, and ironically Jewish people weren't one of the demographics criticised in Million!

I think he just thought he could write songs from what he thought, or had thought at some time when on the streets feeling he was getting hassled, and thought about again when wanting to write a song; and saw other people doing in punk or rap.

I think Axl was a prejudiced person (like many other people, of course) and only when he could develop a relationship with someone different to him, it is when he accepted them for whom they were, regardless of their background, race, etc.

We don't know what Axl might have thought of Slash when he met Slash.... probably we will never know.... but what if he thought "something" of Slash? And then, after talking, hanging out, playing together etc., he could have changed his mind and that's how you explain them getting along.

Not many people go around voicing out loud how much they dislike immigrants, gays and black people, but that doesn't mean they do not think to themselves "that f----", "that n-----", or feel uncomfortable when around someone different to them. Most of us have a filter for the way we move ourselves in social situations.

The part I don't understand about Axl is releasing this song in 1988... One would think that after you've arrived to the big city it is normal that you feel like you don't belong and feel estranged by all these people (especially if you never had contact with them), but after some period of time, you get to adapt, you integrate yourself in the community and the melting pot becomes natural to you.

That's why it baffles me how could he still harbor those feelings six years later after his arrival to L.A. Was his anger so big? How could he still hold a grudge against people who, according to him, he met briefly in the streets or in some occassional store?

[Georgina Arriaga]

An interesting perspective:

https://www.splicetoday.com/music/gnr-vs-p-c

[TeeJay410]

I just listened to One in a Million for the first time in years. Yeesh. Lyrically it sounds like a Morrissey interview.

[soon]

I was surprised to read a few posts that claimed that no one was offended in 88' when OIAM was released.  I knew this wasnt the case and did a bit of googling. Tipper Gore, in her role as founder of the Parents Music Resource Centre was vocal. As was Arsenio Hall, who threatened to kick Axl's ass. The first article below - from 1989 - highlights only some of the most mainstream voices condemning the track. The article also makes brief reference to the growing concern in North America at that time about bigotry in popular music. And this is something I learned in my googling; 1989 was a very important year for organized White Nationalists in the US who were getting incredibly effective at using rock music as a recruitment tool. It was a hot topic. Up until OIAM the issue was that underground bands were being used to promote hate and recruit young people. But then the biggest band on the planet seemed to be stepping up to the plate - so it seemed to those already engaged in the conversation, that is. More on that after the LA Times article.

 

Behind the Guns N' Roses Racism Furor : The continuing debate over whether the band's song, 'One in a Million,' promotes bigotry

October 15, 1989|PATRICK GOLDSTEIN

Rock 'n' roll is in the hot seat again.

Call it media hype or justifiable outrage, but an acrimonious debate is raging over whether hard-rock heavyweights Guns N' Roses--as well as rap idols Public Enemy and speed-metal kings Slayer--are promoting bigotry and hatred.

Guns N' Roses has been under fire for a host of inflammatory lyrics in its song "One in a Million," which uses derogatory epithets to describe blacks and gays. The furor has continued, largely fueled by a Rolling Stone cover story in August. In that article, Guns N' Roses leader Axl Rose deepened the debate by stating: "Why can black people go up to each other and (use racial epithets), but when a white guy does it, all of a sudden it's a big put-down?"

Since then, rock and racism has become a hot story, with Guns N' Roses smack in the bull's-eye:

* A host of media outlets, from the "Today" show to the New York Times, have spotlighted heated reactions to the group's allegedly racist and anti-homosexual lyrics.

* Interviewing Boy George on his talk show, host Arsenio Hall blasted Rose as an "ignorant racist."

* In a letter to the New York Times, actor Sean Penn admiringly defended "One in a Million," comparing it to a Robert Capa war photo, labeling criticism of the band "pseudo-liberal hogwash."

* Parents Music Resource Center founder Tipper Gore also joined the debate, criticizing Guns N' Roses on "Entertainment Tonight" and, in a letter to the New York Times last Sunday, sounding the call for more "concern" and "outrage" about "troubling messages marketed to children through popular music."

In a full-page ad in Hollywood trade papers late last month, the Simon Wiesenthal Center asked the music industry: "Have we, as a nation, grown so apathetic about the racial, religious and sexual bias that is beginning to permeate our society? . . . Isn't it about time (the music industry) takes a firm stand against the immoral spread of hatred and bigotry?"

It's hard to believe that the Rolling Stones outraged parents and TV programmers two decades ago by singing "Let's Spend the Night Together." But now the Shock Rock mantle has been passed to Guns N' Roses, whose "One in a Million" offers a far more graphic--and vulgar--sketch of modern life. The song portrays a small-town boy's first fearful glimpse of grimy, downtown Los Angeles and uses scabrous, streetwise language--unsuitable for publication in this newspaper--replete with slurs against blacks, gays and immigrants.

The rock ballad attracted some initial media scrutiny when it was released late last year. But it didn't emerge as a cause celebre until a commentary published in the Village Voice in late August took the press to task for criticizing Public Enemy for anti-Semitic remarks by one of its members without expressing similar outrage over Rose's lyrics.

(Earlier this year, Prof. Griff, known as Public Enemy's Minister of Information, gave a much-publicized interview claiming that Jews were behind "a majority of wickedness that goes on across the globe." Though the group fired Griff, he was eventually reinstated, even though he refused to retract his remarks; in his most recent interview, he called his statements "100% pure.")

Defending his song in Rolling Stone, Axl Rose said he used a racial epithet because "it's a word to describe somebody that is basically a pain in your life, a problem. There's a rap group, N.W.A. . . . I mean, they're proud of that word. . . . I've had some very bad experiences with homosexuals. (But am I) anti-homosexual? I'm not against them doing what they do as long as they're not forcing it upon me."

Rose would not comment further, but his management firm issued a statement saying: "Guns N' Roses do not base their career on bigotry. . . . It is an artist's right to comment with honesty on both the beautiful and the ugly."

Are such racial epithets fair game because blacks use them too? Not at all, says Arsenio Hall.

"I never do--ever. And Guns N' Roses' attitude points out the very danger in using it. Because ignorant white people like Axl Rose are going to get the idea that's it's OK to use it too. The difference is very clear. N.W.A uses it in a figurative way, whereas Guns N' Roses uses it in a negative, derogatory way--as a white slavemaster would use it.

"There are rules of the turf. . . . I met several members of Guns N' Roses during the MTV Awards, and they seemed nice and decent. But Axl never said a word to me. And if we ever talk, I'll tell him another rule of the street. If you use that kind of language, you get your (rear-end) whipped. And I hope someone whips his (rear end) so he knows it's a mistake."

One thing is obvious--the debate over ethnic slurs has touched a raw nerve.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-10-15/entertainment/ca-485_1_axl-rose

 

Unfortunately I dont know how to copy from a Gooogle Books but the following link should take you to it on page 330 and 331 of Youth Culture In America Vol 2.  There is insight into the then current proliferation of organized hates use of rock music to recruit.  The UK had been supplying the racist bands like Screwdriver and NA hate leader Tom Metzger had developed an implementation of that model in the USA. In 1989 Metzger hosted the successful rock festival "Reich N Roll."  Following this high water mark for rock and recruitment the hate rock scene in NA really started to flourish.  This lead to the founding of several racist music labels.

It goes on to say that during different points in history that the hate groups use different strategies. It says that in 2000's they moved to the internet and most recently use online gaming as a successful recruitment strategy. But in 1989; it was rock music. And groups like the Southern Poverty Law Centre along with many public figures were exposing it and sounding the alarm.

Hopefully this will link to page 330-331:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=SoCeCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA330&lpg=PA330&dq=reich+n+roll+festival+Oklahoma+Memorial+Day&source=bl&ots=c6_9JRxviw&sig=8za48Axbb2dVqzszqyf6DrLl9T8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJxcKzjPvaAhVqT98KHWkjCnEQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=reich n roll festival Oklahoma Memorial Day&f=false 

 

And that is precisely why the following link to an Anti-Klan Committees newspaper from 1990 has a picture of Axl, next to a headline for Tom Metzgers murder case, but referencing the power of rock to recruit.  They are paired as one item, yet two separate articles appear below that are unrelated.  One on OIAM and one on Metzgers murder case.  Sadly the pdf seems to have left out the second half of the article on OIAM.  

But to me all of the links highlight how GNR dropped this track in the middle of a very serious issue facing the US; the growing success of rock music as a recruitment tool for organized hate.  And doing so at a time, as the other articles in the newspaper demonstrate, when organized hate groups were growing in size and were acting on their violent rhetoric by attacking, intimidating and murdering minorities.

https://www.freedomarchives.org/Documents/Finder/DOC37_scans/37.nokkk.spr90.pdf

 

Just to be clear, I do not for one split second think GNR was intending to contribute to the Hate Groups recruitment strategy. This post is just to demonstrate how the track was historically received and also to contextualize why there was such a firm push back against it.

Edited May 16, 2018 by soon

[SoulMonster]

Slash and Duff talking at MTV about One In A Million in October 1988, before the release of Lies:

 

Quote

Interviewer: ... and throwing this song "I Used To Love Her, But I Had To Kill Her" so that...

Slash: There's actually another song called "One In A Million" that's got some lyrics on it, that are a little bit more... hrmm... controversial than "I Used To Love Her, But I Had To Kill Her".

Interviewer: Oh really?

Slash: Yeah. I won't get into it. I don't wanna... Sort of, let the stuff out of the bag.

Interviewer: So we have to look forward to that. "One In A Mellion".

Slash: No...

Interviewer: "Once In A Million". What is it?

Duff: "One In A Million".

Slash: "One In A Million".

Duff: What it is... Yeah, with that.

Slash: I wouldn't s... you know.

Interviewer: Wait and see?

Duff: Yeah.

Interviewer: You guys are...

Slash: It's not someth... I don't know. I shouldn't even have brought it up. Never mind. Strike that.
 

So they did anticipate controversy. And they got it.

That being said, GN'R was always controversial. The original cover got them in trouble. Even when put on the inner sleeve people were picketing stores that sold the record, claiming it was pro-rape. The swearing got them in trouble. The debauchery got them in trouble. At times the only thing the media wrote about was crazy rumors, music had to take the back seat. The song It's So Easy got them in trouble. The music video to Welcome to the Jungle got them in trouble. The song You're Crazy got them in trouble. The song Used To Love Her got them in trouble. The song One In A Million got them in trouble. This carried on into the 90s when shops refused to sell UYIs due to racism and profanity. It didn't help with all the excesses, violence, riots and shit, either.

GN'R is just a band that the press and public loves to hate. More so than other bands, at least at the time. And the band itself would at times exploit this in a give and take between them and the press. Branding. It helped sell more records. The bad boys of rock and roll.

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, soon said:

Just to be clear, I do not for one split second think GNR was intending to contribute to the Hate Groups recruitment strategy. This post is just to demonstrate how the track was historically received and also to contextualize why there was such a firm push back against it.

Thank you for your research 🙂

This shows how dangerous the song is if it falls on the wrong hands. I don't think GN'R were contributing to those groups either but when you release your art, you have no control of it anymore and that's how those radical groups take advantage of these things.

Having the avail of a mainstream rock band who were at the peak of their popularity was more than they could have ever achieved by themselves. It was giving them everything they needed to justify their hate. So yeah, it sucks band had to do that....

[Order of Nine]

Political correctness is the enemy of truth. More people should just say whatever they feel and not care about who they have offended. Top down censorship is at an all time unprecedented high, if your not aware of this you have no idea what's been going on. Google being used as a political lapdog to erase content, skewing everyone's perception or just deleting info all together is nothing less then a modern day book burning imho. If a band or celebrity wants to sound off about something with the intent of telling thier truth then by all means that's what they should do. OIAM is a good example of what has made it great here, freedom of speech, you can't ever take that for granted no matter how much something said angers you or not.

[Ratam]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Slash and Duff talking at MTV about One In A Million in October 1988, before the release of Lies:

 

So they did anticipate controversy. And they got it.

That being said, GN'R was always controversial. The original cover got them in trouble. Even when put on the inner sleeve people were picketing stores that sold the record, claiming it was pro-rape. The swearing got them in trouble. The debauchery got them in trouble. At times the only thing the media wrote about was crazy rumors, music had to take the back seat. The song It's So Easy got them in trouble. The music video to Welcome to the Jungle got them in trouble. The song You're Crazy got them in trouble. The song Used To Love Her got them in trouble. The song One In A Million got them in trouble. This carried on into the 90s when shops refused to sell UYIs due to racism and profanity. It didn't help with all the excesses, violence, riots and shit, either.

GN'R is just a band that the press and public loves to hate. More so than other bands, at least at the time. And the band itself would at times exploit this in a give and take between them and the press. Branding. It helped sell more records. The bad boys of rock and roll.

Slash and Duff sound uncomfortable in this interview .they don't know give clear explanation.

[Ace Nova]

On 5/14/2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve J from UK GUNS said:

Of course there's the possibility that the song might simply not have been approved for release in 2018, with the controls on acceptable lyrical content being far tighter now than back in 1988. As such, it might have been out of the band's hands altogether. 

Huh?
 

Have you listened to just about any "gangster rap" released over the past 10 years?  A lot of their songs make OIAM sound like a love a bye baby ballad.    So I have no idea what "controls" you're talking about. 

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

On ‎14‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 7:15 PM, killuridols said:

I think Axl was a prejudiced person (like many other people, of course) and only when he could develop a relationship with someone different to him, it is when he accepted them for whom they were, regardless of their background, race, etc.

We don't know what Axl might have thought of Slash when he met Slash.... probably we will never know.... but what if he thought "something" of Slash? And then, after talking, hanging out, playing together etc., he could have changed his mind and that's how you explain them getting along.

Not many people go around voicing out loud how much they dislike immigrants, gays and black people, but that doesn't mean they do not think to themselves "that f----", "that n-----", or feel uncomfortable when around someone different to them. Most of us have a filter for the way we move ourselves in social situations.

The part I don't understand about Axl is releasing this song in 1988... One would think that after you've arrived to the big city it is normal that you feel like you don't belong and feel estranged by all these people (especially if you never had contact with them), but after some period of time, you get to adapt, you integrate yourself in the community and the melting pot becomes natural to you.

That's why it baffles me how could he still harbor those feelings six years later after his arrival to L.A. Was his anger so big? How could he still hold a grudge against people who, according to him, he met briefly in the streets or in some occassional store?

I think you're right about everybody being prejudiced in some way, and that's why with Axl it comes down to personality rather than prejudice, although it may look like prejudice to individuals. Most of the time when I hear about people talking about racism or something I think I've experienced that too, from the same kind of people, and I'm the 'same as them'.
I used to put 'prejudice' at university down to classism or ageism, but then I heard 'normal' students having the same problems; some of whom had committed suicide!
I agree about releasing it being strange. Either Axl thought he was 'street' enough to say those things; he thought it was an essential part of his story (in contrast, but also an essential part of his arriving in L.A. story, he told the story on stage about the 'old black man' who said 'you're going to die', immortalised in the Jungle intro, with obvious fondness), or he wrote it and thought it was a good tune and didn't want to change it, as he was obviously quite demanding and possessive of his songs/art, according to the others, and the way he acted on stage if interrupted. 

[killuridols]

13 minutes ago, Axl's Agony Aunt said:

I think you're right about everybody being prejudiced in some way, and that's why with Axl it comes down to personality rather than prejudice, although it may look like prejudice to individuals. Most of the time when I hear about people talking about racism or something I think I've experienced that too, from the same kind of people, and I'm the 'same as them'.
I used to put 'prejudice' at university down to classism or ageism, but then I heard 'normal' students having the same problems; some of whom had committed suicide!
I agree about releasing it being strange. Either Axl thought he was 'street' enough to say those things; he thought it was an essential part of his story (in contrast, but also an essential part of his arriving in L.A. story, he told the story on stage about the 'old black man' who said 'you're going to die', immortalised in the Jungle intro, with obvious fondness), or he wrote it and thought it was a good tune and didn't want to change it, as he was obviously quite demanding and possessive of his songs/art, according to the others, and the way he acted on stage if interrupted. 

I think it could be a mix of him thinking there was nothing wrong with it because some rap artists said the word too (and he didn't understand why he couldn't use it) and him just thinking he should be brutally honest with the world, regarding emotions and things he was feeling back then, or his experiences. His lyrics mostly consists of personal experiences and feelings he has for people.

 

[pf1994]

I Hope they include one in a million as hidden track like the Manson song

[wasteofammo]

PC (paradise city) is now Politically Correct. 

[Len Cnut]

On 16/05/2018 at 12:59 PM, SoulMonster said:

Slash and Duff talking at MTV about One In A Million in October 1988, before the release of Lies:

 

So they did anticipate controversy. And they got it.

That being said, GN'R was always controversial. The original cover got them in trouble. Even when put on the inner sleeve people were picketing stores that sold the record, claiming it was pro-rape. The swearing got them in trouble. The debauchery got them in trouble. At times the only thing the media wrote about was crazy rumors, music had to take the back seat. The song It's So Easy got them in trouble. The music video to Welcome to the Jungle got them in trouble. The song You're Crazy got them in trouble. The song Used To Love Her got them in trouble. The song One In A Million got them in trouble. This carried on into the 90s when shops refused to sell UYIs due to racism and profanity. It didn't help with all the excesses, violence, riots and shit, either.

GN'R is just a band that the press and public loves to hate. More so than other bands, at least at the time. And the band itself would at times exploit this in a give and take between them and the press. Branding. It helped sell more records. The bad boys of rock and roll.

Its quite clear they anticipated controversy, the little thingie on the front cover of the album illustrates that pretty clearly.  These folks survived on the streets of LA y'know, you think they were these wide eyed virgins who had no idea that the word n!gger is offensive?

[Axl's Agony Aunt]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

Its quite clear they anticipated controversy, the little thingie on the front cover of the album illustrates that pretty clearly.  These folks survived on the streets of LA y'know, you think they were these wide eyed virgins who had no idea that the word n!gger is offensive?

As I remember it there wasn't that much 'gained' from the song, although they did court controversy, as many bands had since the '60s, including Stones (Baudelaire, Satanism etc) and Beatles: Lennon's song titled Women are the N_ of the World for example. I think Lennon was obviously using that word for feminist reasons: to highlight how they've usually got it worse than 'non-white' people, and especially in most of the 'non-white' world.

I think Axl used it as black people use it, to criticise those who aren't good people on the street; same as F_ was used to criticise those gay people who solicit street people. 

It was a song from the street, and as Axl and Guns were not trying to portray themselves as nice people, they probably thought they could criticise other demographics.

Some members of those other demographics seem to think it's okay to criticise white people or straight people a lot, but don't think their demographics can be criticised.

Million is crass and crude, but it was a badass rock n' roll song, and of course looks WRONG when analysed within politically correct mainstream society; which is much more so than it was in the 1980s.

Most of punk and rap would be too if analysed that way, as well as people like The Doors, Marilyn Manson and even Pink Floyd (anti-education etc).

Then there's the writers and poets, like the Beats (Howl etc), Bukowski, Thompson and Tom Wolfe, who just passed away this week. 

[Len Cnut]

2 minutes ago, Axl's Agony Aunt said:

As I remember it there wasn't that much 'gained' from the song, although they did court controversy, as many bands had since the '60s, including Stones (Baudelaire, Satanism etc) and Beatles: Lennon's song titled Women are the N_ of the World for example. I think Lennon was obviously using that word for feminist reasons: to highlight how they've usually got it worse than 'non-white' people, and especially in most of the 'non-white' world.

I think Axl used it as black people use it, to criticise those who aren't good people on the street; same as F_ was used to criticise those gay people who solicit street people. 

It was a song from the street, and as Axl and Guns were not trying to portray themselves as nice people, they probably thought they could criticise other demographics.

Some members of those other demographics seem to think it's okay to criticise white people or straight people a lot, but don't think their demographics can be criticised.

Million is crass and crude, but it was a badass rock n' roll song, and of course looks WRONG when analysed within politically correct mainstream society; which is much more so than it was in the 1980s.

Most of punk and rap would be too if analysed that way, as well as people like The Doors, Marilyn Manson and even Pink Floyd (anti-education etc).

Then there's the writers and poets, like the Beats (Howl etc), Bukowski, Thompson and Tom Wolfe, who just passed away this week. 

Things like punk dont get judged in the same way because its small scale stuff by definition, its kinda made for a crude minority.  There’s ways of courting controversy though, The Stones satanic shit isnt really offensive, its just...cheeky.  Nor is it at any groups expense.  Brown Sugar is a better example of The Stones in that kinda mode.  They say the word n!gger in Sweet Black Angel too, though the nature of what that song is kinda cancels out the offensive possibilities.

Hip Hop as a general says umpteen things that could be construed as extremely racist.