Topic RSS
12.14pm
16 August 2012
OfflineOf all the Beatles solo and together John took political problems to heart. Some of his actions, the Bed In, The Imagine anthem, Nutopia and War is Over can be considered as positive. But the other aspects of his political ideas were poorly thought out and probably a bad thing, meeting with the Black Panthers, allegedly funding the IRA, his political nievety was sometimes clear.
So, on balance was John a positive political influence?
Comment and inform!
Was John a positive political influence?
- Yes
- No
9.36pm
23 January 2011
OfflineThis is an interesting question and one I'm not sure how to answer. Overall, I believe John's actual political insights were very narrow and naive, but it's not really John's insights that people cling to…it's the idea of them. So John's actual political contributions are very small, but the contributions people perceived him to have made are rather larger, inspiring other political actions. For instance, the song Give Peace a Chance was written a long time after people had started protesting the Vietnam War, but it was sung outside the White House as a protest song. People then associate John with the end of the war, but he actually kept his nose out of it for a long time. Other people made greater contributions to end the war, but John's perceived contributions are the ones that stick in the mind.
Overall, I think his message of peace and love, even when they were ideals that he didn't wholly carry out himself, have left a positive impact. I still hate the song Imagine.
9.36pm

12 April 2012
Offline10.39pm
3 May 2012
OnlineHe cared about politics and the effects that it could have and I suppose he made people more aware of what was going on in the world, which can't be a bad thing, but I'm not sure if I would go as far as saying that he was a positive political influence as I don't think anybody actually made a good decision about something because of him or something that he said.
This is a thing I don't really know a lot about though so I would love to be proved wrong.
2.24am
15 August 2012
OfflineI think it depends on which era of his life you're talking about. He seems to have lost a lot of that naivete as he got older, but he was very naive as a young man first getting into politics. Overall, I think he tried to do what he thought was best and believe the best of people, so I would agree with others on here that the ideas of his messages were more important than the messages themselves.
I think Imagine is an interesting song -- because I know someone else has mentioned it on here -- simply because John didn't actually believe in any of the things the verses spout. No religion? He went through several different religious and spiritual searches in the 70's and identified himself as a Zen Christian at the end of his life. No possessions? He owned several properties and had at least two walk-in closets in his New York apartment complex. Furthermore, in a 1979 interview, he claimed he had no shame over this and that the minute you start to feel ashamed of how much you have, people try to take it from you. No countries? He was the only Beatle to attempt with great effort to completely emigrate from a British to a US citizenship. Clearly he at least recognized that there are differences between countries.
So what's up with Imagine? Clearly he thought that people can do better and overcome their instincts to create a good, more peaceful world. So the chorus makes sense with what we know of him. I don't know if the rest is ambiguous and misinterpreted, or if it was just written at a point in his life where, as I said, he was still very naive about a lot of things and easily swayed by the political ideas he heard around him.
Not even that makes sense, though, because the literal world of Imagine -- not an alternative interpretation of the lyrics, but if we actually take them to literally mean "we should do this" -- is a kind of socialism-related idea, and all the way back in the late 60's John was making cracks in his songs about Mao Zedong… ![]()
Hm. Sorry, I kind of ranted there. I am fascinated by John Lennon's politics.
2.55am
23 January 2011
OfflineEilwynn said
I think it depends on which era of his life you're talking about. He seems to have lost a lot of that naivete as he got older, but he was very naive as a young man first getting into politics. Overall, I think he tried to do what he thought was best and believe the best of people, so I would agree with others on here that the ideas of his messages were more important than the messages themselves.
I think Imagine is an interesting song -- because I know someone else has mentioned it on here -- simply because John didn't actually believe in any of the things the verses spout. No religion? He went through several different religious and spiritual searches in the 70's and identified himself as a Zen Christian at the end of his life. No possessions? He owned several properties and had at least two walk-in closets in his New York apartment complex. Furthermore, in a 1979 interview, he claimed he had no shame over this and that the minute you start to feel ashamed of how much you have, people try to take it from you. No countries? He was the only Beatle to attempt with great effort to completely emigrate from a British to a US citizenship. Clearly he at least recognized that there are differences between countries.
So what's up with Imagine? Clearly he thought that people can do better and overcome their instincts to create a good, more peaceful world. So the chorus makes sense with what we know of him. I don't know if the rest is ambiguous and misinterpreted, or if it was just written at a point in his life where, as I said, he was still very naive about a lot of things and easily swayed by the political ideas he heard around him.
Not even that makes sense, though, because the literal world of Imagine -- not an alternative interpretation of the lyrics, but if we actually take them to literally mean "we should do this" -- is a kind of socialism-related idea, and all the way back in the late 60's John was making cracks in his songs about Mao Zedong…
Hm. Sorry, I kind of ranted there. I am fascinated by John Lennon's politics.
Excellent discourse. These are things that have always bugged me about the Imagine Peace John. He's a creation…not the actual John. I get very frustrated over his manufactured image today. It makes him so one dimensional…and he wasn't at all.
8.16am
15 August 2012
OfflineI did a blog post on it here if anyone's interested. An optional alternative interpretation of Imagine, if you will:
8.53am
16 August 2012
OfflineInteresting point Eilwynn, I think John slipped into the usual trap with the 'no possessions' socialist ideology, I think it's easy to say when you have a million in the bank. I do the same, I try to be this hippy dippy minimalist, but I still salivate over any product made by a certain fruit based technology company. I think John wanted people to be free from authority more than anything, freedom from God, freedom from politics, freedom from big business. As said by Christopher Hitchens, any religion is a celestial North Korea. Songs like imagine are expressing this in a tangible way.
![]()
11.49am
15 August 2012
OfflineYeah, I see what you're saying. Again, as with most things concerning John's politics: more about the idea than the literal meaning. Very abstracted.
12.08pm
1 May 2011
OfflineBit of both for me. Yoko and his idea to spread the idea of peace was very good as its what needs to be heard, we need more peace -"make love not war" right? Totally buy into that. Not sure about all the stunts tho but then how else would they have gotten the message out. And Give Peace A Chance is the Peace Anthem regardless of when it was written, it still has a good relevant message to me anyway,
As for Imagine, sorry but Yoko and her crusade to shove it down our throats at every point has ruined it for me. Imagine no possessions and what better way to say to say imagine no possessions in the form of a toothbrush, harmonica, icecream, number plate, toasting fork protector, frogleg heater, automatic cucumber holder/peeler, air removal mask…
A childish rant yes but it so bugs me to levels such as these, totally agree with kedame's reply to Eilwynn post above:
Excellent discourse. These are things that have always bugged me about the Imagine Peace John. He's a creation…not the actual John. I get very frustrated over his manufactured image today. It makes him so one dimensional…and he wasn't at all.
1.59pm
26 March 2012
OfflineIn my opinion, John's "love and peace" motive was far more convincing and realistic when approached from the spiritual and poetic side of 1967 than from the militant political side of '69-'72 or so. John's grounding in realistic, official political matters was not very stable, rather naive at times, and I think it was dangerous for him to throw his weight around in that area so much when someone of his cultural stature could have had devastating consequences. However, the John of 1967 knew where it was at because his approach to love and peace and movement for change was something that he understood, and did very well: the abstract concept, the lyric that is difficult to grasp on a literal level but inspires and moves nonetheless. It was when he started to take a brash, blunt approach to radical movements (as on the Sometimes in New York City album) that it went pear-shaped.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: fabfouremily, Beatles in the Blood, AppleScruffJunior, TwoAfter908
2 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3419
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1507
vonbontee: 1427
GniknuS: 1365
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 86
Members: 1676
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2385
Posts: 72986
Newest Members: TheNoWhereMan5870, darinh, timboslice, moreplasticsoul, Stone
Moderators: Joe (2698), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2698)
Log In
Register
Home



