Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lady Antebellum is changing its name to Lady A

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lady Antebellum is changing its name to Lady A


    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/11/e...nge/index.html

    The group announced on Thursday that it will drop the word "Antebellum" from the name it has used since its formation in 2006 and go by Lady A, a nickname it says fans have long used.
    The change, the group said in a statement, comes after realizing the word's association to slavery.
    Haven't been early since '88

  • #2
    Good for them.

    As an aside, that message on their tweet is deeply unpleasant, aesthetically speaking - white capital letters on brown background...nooo.

    Comment


    • thebigham
      thebigham commented
      Editing a comment
      I thought the same thing! LOL

  • #3
    Ridiculous! The world has gone crazy. It's official.

    Comment


    • #4
      It's interesting that I heard a news report yesterday that used the term 'Antebellum' and I literally thought of this group. Glad they're changing the name...though I imagine there's gonna be some fierce pushback from country music fans.
      Akini's Top 400 Songs of the Decade: [2-1!]

      Comment


      • #5
        They've been off mainstream radar for a while now, so I wouldn't expect them to have to fear a major backlash.
        Imo, they should've sticked with the name they had when they had their commercial breakthrough a decade ago.
        Don't need hindsight
        I'll make my emotions clear
        And then disappear
        With one strike
        (All Saints)

        Comment


        • #6
          They still are relevant on country radio though. I'm hoping they don't face a backlash over it; I'd like to think country fans are better than that.

          Comment


          • #7
            Waiting for Black Sabbath to change their name as well, because it's oh-so offensive.

            Comment


            • #8
              I read the statement but I don't understand the name change. If I understand correctly they changed it because houses back in the day of slavery were called Antebellum?
              My Instagram... - Click here

              Comment


              • #9
                Folks acting stupid while pretending to be woke and caring. Nothing new here.
                Whitney Houston

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by Nippian93 View Post
                  Folks acting stupid while pretending to be woke and caring. Nothing new here.
                  You think their name change is stupid instead of caring? Can you explain this?
                  My Instagram... - Click here

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Lady Antebellum Is Now ‘Lady A.’ But So Is a Blues Singer Who’s Used the Name for 20 Years
                    https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/new...s-1013919/amp/
                    5.05.2009 / 6.22.2011 / 4.24.2013 / 4.25.2013 / 3.1.2014 / 9.13.2014 / 7.21.2016 / 7.14.2018 / 7.15.2018

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by RayRay View Post
                      I read the statement but I don't understand the name change. If I understand correctly they changed it because houses back in the day of slavery were called Antebellum?
                      Antebellum means "before the war" in Latin.

                      The term now commonly refers to the period in the American South before the Civil War.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        It’s a confusing time for celebrities.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          The Dixie Chicks join the list and are called 'The Chicks' from now on.
                          Don't need hindsight
                          I'll make my emotions clear
                          And then disappear
                          With one strike
                          (All Saints)

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            So "Dixie" is now "offensive", some women dislike the term "chick", too, so maybe they should have went with "Chicks with Dix" or something like that, sounds hip.
                            Last edited by Nippian93; Fri June 26th, 2020, 11:55.
                            Whitney Houston

                            Comment


                            • #16
                              I personally don't agree with any of this at all. Of course they can do what they want, but first, when was the last time an artist's name change was successful? Second, how about you give a new connotation to the name? All words are associated with something at the end of the day, for instance the month July, coming from the dictator Julius Cesar...

                              Don't try to change history, but instead mold the future.
                              ​​​​​​
                              I am the maniac, I am the ghoul
                              I'm in the shadows in the corners of my room

                              Comment


                              • #17
                                ^ Agree, people are too stuck in the past, this PC nonsense is not for me, do most people really care? I doubt most people even knew what their name meant and I doubt it will make them anymore popular or whatever. They've undoubtedly given in to some insidious twitter mob or something.
                                My tits are made of silicone, just like the Earth and sea...

                                Comment


                                • #18
                                  This is getting pathetic. I'm NOT gonna support any more of this PC nonsense. The world has gone mad.

                                  Floppy Chicks!

                                  Comment


                                  • #19
                                    Ridiculous

                                    Can people stand up and discuss school infrastructure and learning conditions in black communities, war, child abuse, murdering homosexuals and famine instead please?
                                    Last edited by LOVE+FEAR; Fri June 26th, 2020, 18:26.
                                    2019 Year End Charts: The 20/20 Experience

                                    Comment


                                    • #20
                                      Rather than retreading history should we not be trying to tackle the issues that exist for people living today?
                                      THRILLER’S SOUNDS OF THE 90s

                                      Comment


                                      • #21
                                        Jeez. Couldn't make it up.

                                        Comment


                                        • #22
                                          Bit disappointed in the reactions here. Of course there are other more pressing and important issues to focus on, but these name changes are part of a bigger project. A project that truly believes in racial/ethinic equity. If you believe that should be our society, then you should also care about this.

                                          True racial/ethnic equity comes with the decolonization of the core, which includes erasing racist excesses that grew into the culture of the dominant ethnic group. You cannot pretend to be pro racial/ethnic equity and allow certain racist excesses to exist in your cultural practices. You can discuss as much as you want about the 'authenticity' of these changes, but the fact that it is happening is at least some type of improvement. Erasing racist behavioral and cognitive structures will take time, a lot of time. This seems sudden, but I do believe the circulation of concepts like whiteness for decades now has helped, in combination with multiple social actions, making the identity of the ethnic majority in the EU or in the US the racial majority more 'visible'. Suddenly some, not all obviosuly, see themselves also as an ethnic group. The own racialization changes a lot about your world view as inferiority and superiority suddenly become more fluid. There has been enough 'neutral' and 'secular' bias. What the f does that even mean? So I only applaud those initiatives, regardless of their intention. And no, this is no call for identity politics cause there is another road that has to be taken: redistribution of power and the reformulation of an inherent pluralistic national identity.
                                          Ethnic minorities, at least in Belgium, experience constant pressure of assimilation. Don't get me wrong, assimilation is not an inherently bad notion, but it can be depending on the argumentation of assimilation. And let us call it as it is, a lot of assimilation pressure in European countries are informed by a culturalist or cultural racist (however you want to call it) reading. I got a taste of that during my field work, but I can still not imagine how it is for a female Muslim, for example, to live in a society that in its structures and individual expressions is quite hostile towards a specific part of your identity. You can only be a good student if you strip certain aspects of your identity. As being a part of the ethnic majority I never encountered those feelings. There are always exceptions, but they prove the rule. It is clear in Belgium that if you want to get into a power position as a member of an ethnic minority group you have to be as Flemish as possible, and privatize everything that does not belong in that position. Which is completely flawed in my opinion, and is in its essence racist (culturalism and racism collide in most racist expressions). This is why I always have been pro political multiculturalism (not the 'multiculturalism' we saw in practice), which on the one hand validates hybrid and the possession of multiple identities, but on the other hand is also a society that supports groups that want to politically represent one type of identity (for example an ethnoreligious one like Muslims). This would result in an ever changing inherent pluralistic national identity, where everybody, members of all ethnic groups, can at least partially recognize themselves in the overarching identity. One monocultural national identity is a priori doomed, cause it always implies that that one group has to give up certain parts of themselves if it wants to recognize itself in that national identity.

                                          In summary, I applaud it cause at the end of the day true racial-ethnic equity is not only about erasing racism (and a lot of other inequalities that impact ethnic minority groups and working-class groups alike), but also about decolonizing a society in its core where notions of neutrality are a priori nonexistent.

                                          It is not this 'PC bullshit', but individualism that kills society. And do people care? Obviously they do (I know I do), otherwise you have been living under a stone for the last few weeks. I also get the annoyance with 'political correctness' but most of these frustrations come out of, mistakingly, individualizing issues that are in its core social. People might be sensitive to July (deriving from Cesar apparently), or as our biggest politician, in the context of a Hidjab ban in schools, puts it: "Should we now allow kids to wear colanders to school?!" But... this is so flawed that I don't know where to start. Gender, class, race/ethnicity and religion are not individual traits or ahistorical categories, these are social categories that have played a pivotal role throughout human history (especially in conflicts), and form the base for ever lasting structural inequalities. Individuals comparing this with a colander just don't get it. These are perverse effects of individualism, cause you cannot individualize something that is social. For real change to happen, like artists changing their name, a political group and platform is required. Religious groups are (for now) not in the same category as groups of nerds for example. If you think they are I would highly recommend you to follow some courses in sociology and anthropology.
                                          Last edited by Michiel; Sun June 28th, 2020, 18:51.
                                          Eudaimonia
                                          Last.fm
                                          Instagram

                                          Comment


                                          • theMathematician
                                            theMathematician commented
                                            Editing a comment
                                            Rhetorically perfect post. It's just that contentwise, I believe in the total opposite, making it hard for me to agree on your statements.

                                        • #23
                                          Em, I see the political correctness movement as a movement with an undeclared purpose of limiting freedom of speech and as such I don't support it. I do agree that there are expressions and words that are racist and should not be used but I think that should happen organically (like it has happened with so many words) and not through some organization dictating what we can and cannot say. Also I think it's important to not delete history.

                                          "Uncle Ben" rice may have been named after a racist remark but there is no racism in its use nowadays so the idea that that name had to change just because somebody discovered a historical truth is not welcomed by me. Words and expressions do not have always the same meaning, they can change meaning depending on situation, context, historical era etc. The word n#gga for example is offensive if I say it but OK within a black community slang use, the word b@tch could be used in a very offensive way and also in a friendly way and it is so in every language. So erasing words from the vocabulary just because of a racist context that they might have had once upon a time is silly to say the least.

                                          Also it is important to have those words alive (but taking away all their negative content) so we can remember what happened. Erasing history means changing history and that's not appropriate. History should always be studied, re-evaluated and be used as a way to learn and not to be erased just because something seems to be in fashion at a certain period of time.

                                          Lastly, I don't consider this movement of removing statues and words as an anti-racist movement at all...

                                          Otherwise, I do believe in a multicultural society and not in an assimilated one.
                                          jio CHARTS NOW:6/7/2020:https://www.ukmix.org/forum/chart-di...2#post10427172

                                          Comment


                                          • theMathematician
                                            theMathematician commented
                                            Editing a comment
                                            Assimilation is not necessarily a bad thing though ;) .

                                        • #24

                                          Originally posted by jio View Post
                                          Em, I see the political correctness movement as a movement with an undeclared purpose of limiting freedom of speech and as such I don't support it. I do agree that there are expressions and words that are racist and should not be used but I think that should happen organically (like it has happened with so many words) and not through some organization dictating what we can and cannot say. Also I think it's important to not delete history.

                                          Also it is important to have those words alive (but taking away all their negative content) so we can remember what happened. Erasing history means changing history and that's not appropriate. History should always be studied, re-evaluated and be used as a way to learn and not to be erased just because something seems to be in fashion at a certain period of time.
                                          I agree to a certain extent. When it comes to the removal of statues, I agree that erasing is not the same as remembering. A good middle way is the Memento park in Budapest I think, where the communist statues were set in a park outside of the city, but they are still fully intact and are quite impressive. There is a lot of information available too. I think, I hope, we will see similar trends here in the near future, especially when it comes to Leopold 2 statues. At the moment the anger is still very fresh, which leads to these aggressive removals. I'm not saying it is morally good let's say, but consider the history behind it combined with the frustration of continuing structural disadvantages I also could not consider it morally bad. So for now I don't feel offended at all that they violently remove 'my' and, for most of them, also 'their' past king. I mean how could they not, the persuasive and continuous denial combined with a 'He also did a lot of good things in Congo' discourse that reigned for decades is a complete neglect and injustice that has been going on for decades now. This feeds into these more radical actions, which could have been easily prevented if more attention was given to this historical tension throughout these past decades.But yes I agree in the sense that 'a Memento park' approach would be more fruitful in the long term.

                                          I don't align poltical correctness with restriction of freedom of speech at all. When it comes to political correctness and ethnic diversity, we have been, again, living in decades of neglect. At least in Belgium, I cannot always speak for other local and spatial differences. Giving a platform for ethnic minorities to express their disdain with some commonly used racist references the ethnic majority has been unaware of is correct in my eyes. In Belgium there are superdiverse cities, so it is only fair they get a political voice in these matters. They are also Belgian. And I respect that. I also don't feel it has been over the top, or I don't feel in any way limited that a group asks me to show more respect let's say. I also don't feel like it's forced at all, in a sense that an organization is dictating us what we can or cannot say. Most of it has organically grow tbh, at least here. It is just I think a lot of people are caught up in a nostalgic feelings, which is a priori false and romanticizes something that never was, and feel like 'they' steal from 'them'. For me, Belgium as a society always evolves and 'traditions' (which most of the time get wrongfully connected with a specific ethnic group, as they have ownership) should be nurtured but adapted accordingly (which they always do anyway). If your population changes so should your society, and I don't feel in any way offended like loads of people over here when it comes to critique directed towards black pete and yet, I do feel Belgian and I'm proud of being so. That's also funny, cause when I publicize something this is the standard critique: 'I'm not Belgian or I don't feel Belgian'. As if following and listening to the critical reflections of a certain amount of members of a minority racial group that condemns a character in a tradition that looks like your stereotypical jungle black person makes me less Belgian. Talk about a narrow conceptualization of a national identity.

                                          Correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe it is the speed that catches people by surprise and also feeds into a lot of backlash. In a sense, this has been happening organically for decades, but reality has caught up and for some ethnic groups it was just too slow. They feel like they already lost too many chances.

                                          And yes this is my political view, but I also want to emphasize that this is scientifically founded. It is frustrating sometimes, as a social scientist, that everything you say is seen as an 'opinion'. The relationship of racism and whiteness/flemishness/... whatever and its impact on the societal position of minority groups has been empirically proven for decades now (yet some people still feel the need to question this), and obviously intersects with their SES position and gender. The solutions are indeed a combination of politics and science, and in that sense I'm indeed more politically radical. I'm pro system change, which is unimagineable for conservatives of course. That I can respect and I can discuss, but the moment people deny racism I'm gone.

                                          Originally posted by jio View Post
                                          "Uncle Ben" rice may have been named after a racist remark but there is no racism in its use nowadays so the idea that that name had to change just because somebody discovered a historical truth is not welcomed by me. Words and expressions do not have always the same meaning, they can change meaning depending on situation, context, historical era etc. The word n#gga for example is offensive if I say it but OK within a black community slang use, the word b@tch could be used in a very offensive way and also in a friendly way and it is so in every language. So erasing words from the vocabulary just because of a racist context that they might have had once upon a time is silly to say the least.
                                          The second part here I completely agree with. But I also feel like this is what mostly is happening. For example, nobody is banning anybody for using the world 'aliens' 'the N-word' or whatever, but pinpointing its sensitivity in peculiar contexts. So that you wouldn't be surprised if you say 'all aliens should leave the country' when your mic is still on in a political meeting that you also might have to wear the consequences of it. Or that you would not be surprised that if you use the N-word multiple times as a teacher, despite black kids arguing you should not use it, that those kids might be a bit rebellious during your lessons. Power is knowledge they call this, and for too long it were the same type of people who were able to define what could be said or done, and what not could be said or done. I rather experience it as a power balancing act, which now seems like a lot, but isn't it long overdue?
                                          The first sentence I... also disagree. I use the same arguments. I just don't feel like it is offensive or silly at all. But in some sense I do agree with your fear I guess. The fear of excesses of identity politics which indeed might happen. Although it can easily be prevented if a society works towards a more inclusive national identity.


                                          Last edited by Michiel; Sun June 28th, 2020, 20:30.
                                          Eudaimonia
                                          Last.fm
                                          Instagram

                                          Comment


                                          • #25
                                            I think the Leopold thing will take us to destinations unexplored. Leopold was a colonial king. As far as I know, colonialism is universally (and by saying universally that means with exceptions, as everything) considered something bad and never to be repeated again. Even though it essentially happens even today, nobody would dare use that word for describing it. At the same time, colonial kings and queens are celebrated throughout Europe because it was colonialism which allowed these countries to accumulate so much wealth that benefits them even today while countries that experienced colonialism have still to suffer its negative consequences. So the presence of such statues was always a controversial thing in ways that were never considered: "We do learn in school that colonialism is bad so why do we have Leopold up there?". So since those questions were never asked by the while privileged descendants of Leopold, then the statues should remain and the descendants of the colonialized people should use them as an excuse for debating history again and not simply as a stone to be removed and be forgotten. Their energy should be used for educating and not for concrete removal. Yeap, the park idea is good but in the communist east, it came to be because societies as a whole rejected communism. Is it the same in the west in regards to colonialism? I am not so sure.

                                            Also sometimes things are not black or white. There are many figures which did a lot of good along with a lot of bad. Why should they be removed from public memory instead of putting an asterisk under their name? From my own country's history, look at Kemal Ataturk. He was responsible for killing so many Greeks and Armenians and ending centuries-old presence of these nations in Asia Minor. And yet, he was also responsible for making the Turkish nation continue existing and creating something close to a modern democracy in a country which had no such history at all. So can we ask Turkey to remove him from history just because he hurt us? Certainly not.

                                            I completely agree with your last paragraph even though you lost me a bit in regards to what you agree or disagree with me. I just think that freedom of speech is essential for societies to move forward because if a certain idea cannot be heard, then it cannot be debated and it cannot be rejected and it continues living underground. I think in general this is the problem of today's society. We listen and debate only with people who have the same ideas with us anyway. So we can never learn.

                                            I just wish all this energy was directed into something more useful than removing statues and words. In Europe there are so many racist things happening that people are accepting as normal and fair and nobody says a thing about that is just shocking that movements that want to call themselves anti-racist would bother with something so trivial.

                                            jio CHARTS NOW:6/7/2020:https://www.ukmix.org/forum/chart-di...2#post10427172

                                            Comment


                                            • #26
                                              Glad you’re here jio, I agree with a lot of what you write, I think you are a voice of reason and common sense.
                                              My tits are made of silicone, just like the Earth and sea...

                                              Comment


                                              • #27
                                                Interesting discussion between jio and Michiel
                                                I am the maniac, I am the ghoul
                                                I'm in the shadows in the corners of my room

                                                Comment


                                                • #28
                                                  It's completely ridiculous and shows how fake some people are since this is obviously just an attempt to seem "woke". You also have to admire the irony in Lady Antebellum changing their name to avoid seeming racist... while inadvertently angering a Black woman.

                                                  Comment


                                                  • #29
                                                    Removing statues and changing names and erasing words only hide racism, not tackle it. ”You dont see it in my house so that proves it doesn’t exist.” But it’s there under the carpet. Racism cannot be solved until humans let go of our tribal mentality.

                                                    Comment


                                                    • #30
                                                      Originally posted by SpyVsSpy View Post
                                                      Removing statues and changing names and erasing words only hide racism, not tackle it. ”You dont see it in my house so that proves it doesn’t exist.” But it’s there under the carpet. Racism cannot be solved until humans let go of our tribal mentality.
                                                      I kind of understand the statue thing, since statues are a sign of reverence - but instead of taking them down entirely, adding the appropriate context would probably be a better way. Kind of turning them into a cautionary reminder.
                                                      But I also hate the fact that people constantly yell "blackface" when someone darkens their face regardless of context or "cultural appropriation" when a child dresses up as a Native American for Halloween. So I guess I'm not "woke" enough to partake in the discussion...

                                                      For me, it always boils down to the same thing: It's the intent and the context that counts in any given situation, nothing else. Forbidding certain actions or censoring certain words/names does nothing to eliminate the problem. It's the equivalent of putting duct tape over your car's warning light. You might not see the problem anymore, but if you keep driving without ever going to a workshop, it will break down sooner or later.

                                                      When has censoring ever changed someone's mindset? If anything, it creates even more resistance. And that's exactly what the orange clown is using for vote baiting right now. Can't even blame him for that.

                                                      Comment

                                                      Working...
                                                      X