cynyck wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
While I agree with the sentiment expressed in the song, that privilege results in an unequal burden on the large proportion of military personnel, I would never agree with you that the military is something negative.
But that's the sentiment in the song. More specifically that those who support the military are supporting something negative.
That's quite the leap in logic there, but I've seen you do it often before so, not surprised. I love the English language because the more you string those little words together, the more opportunity for people to pull meanings out of their hats and claim "That's what it means! Anyone can see that!" And let's face it, you love the English language also. All real trolls do.
Interesting that instead of actually making any effort to explain how the lyrics don't mean what I said they mean, you went to calling me names instead.
It's not a leap. Did you *ever* study poetry at any level of education? This is a classic association poem. You take things that people already know and understand well, and you add in another element that they may not have thought about as being similar. They tend to progress from the well known to the less known (and thus the "point" of the poem). This song has three verses. Each verse is talking about a group that is (in the writers opinion) helping move the country farther into war (something that is "bad" in this context). Each verse also includes an explanation as to why that group is ok with pushing said war. Each verse also includes a reference to the sons of these groups being "fortunate sons". I'll get to that connection later.
The first group is the politicians. They have the power to start and continue the war. And they choose to do so because it makes them feel powerful and because their sons can be protected from serving. Their sons are "fortunate sons" because of power and protection.
The second group is the rich. They will profit from the war. And they choose to support the war because of that profit and the ability to avoid paying the price (he uses a tax reference here but I'm reasonably certain it's intended to be at least partially allegorical). Their sons are the "fortunate sons" because they will be enriched by the war.
Those first two groups were well known and well identified by the counter culture and anti-war movements of the day. The language he uses and the descriptions would be easily recognized by his audience. But the third verse is where things get interesting. Here he talks about people who "inherit star spangled eyes". These are the patriots. These are the people who feel it is their duty to serve. They are (to make a Gump reference) the Lt. Dan's of the country. People who honestly believe that it is their duty to serve. People who come from a long line of military families. We tend to forget that prior to the Vietnam era, people did line up to join the military when the US went to war because they felt it was their duty to do so. And in the early days of Vietnam, the same thing happened. The "military sons", signed up. They supported the war. They supported their governments actions because that's what they were taught to do by their fathers.
Got it? So here's where it gets offensive to veterans. Fogherty also calls them "fortunate sons". But why would that be? These sons are not going to avoid service. They're volunteering to serve. So why are they fortunate? They are fortunate because, in his opinion, they don't know any better. They believe that fighting for their country is good, and thus will not feel as though they are being given a raw deal by their country. Their fortune is their patriotism. He's basically saying that they are blinded to the fact that they're being used and that saves them from the pain of that realization. And he believes that the solution is to educate people so they will not volunteer to serve.
Put another way, he's blaming people who choose to serve (volunteers) because they help promote the war. He wishes they were not so patriotic and would refuse to serve. But because they do choose to serve, he lumps them in with the first two groups. The point of the song is not just to point the finger of blame at those who promote the war while not serving themselves (or having their sons serve) but to make the point that those who volunteer are *also* to blame.
Now, by itself this is a slap in the face to anyone who has chosen to serve. But you could *almost* forgive the sentiment given the time period. However, it's this type of thinking (blaming those who serve) that ultimately lead to the very abuses and mistreatment of returning soldiers that Fogherty himself talks about in the earlier quote. Of course, he's speaking of the government failing to provide sufficient help to returning soldiers, but those same soldiers were spat upon and abused horribly by the same anti-war/anti-soldier sentiment that Fogherty himself helped start (and one can argue that the government swept returning veterans under the rug in large part because they had been so demonized by the anti-war crowd by then that everyone just wanted to forget that they and the war had existed). This song begins the process of blaming those who volunteer for being part of the problem. Over time, that sentiment moved to blaming, not just those who volunteered, but those who failed to refuse to fight (ie: if you weren't dodging the draft, you were a conspirator to the war).. That's why soldiers were viewed so negatively by the end of the conflict.
The irony is that sort of negative reception to our soldiers returning from Vietnam is a large part of what drives our current incarnation of Veterans day. It's why we make a huge point of supporting our soldiers, even if we disagree with the war they fought in. In other words, the exact opposite of the sentiment that is at the heart of "Fortunate Son". Singing it at a Veterans day event is completely inappropriate. The fact that people have gotten away with it in the past doesn't change the fact that the actual meaning of the song. The very very clear and unmistakable meaning of the song, is that those who choose to fight in wars are to blame for the wars themselves. Again, that's the opposite to the sentiment we've been trying to build for decades. So yeah. Not a great message.
Unless you think I'm misinterpreting the song lyrics? I don't think so, but you are welcome to provide an alternative meaning if you want. I don't want you quoting someone else. I want you to actually tell me in your own words what you think the song means, and why. Because to me, it's very clearly about teaching people to blame the soldiers for fighting in unpopular wars. Which, I think we can all agree, is *not* a sentiment we should be allowing today.
Edited, Nov 14th 2014 7:21pm by gbaji 
