Fighting Music Oppression in Indonesia
A coalition of artists fights back against RUU Permusikan, a bill aimed at curtailing artistic freedoms as art and culture continue to clash with Indonesia’s religious state. But this clash is nothing new.
Music oppression is nothing new in Indonesia. As the world’s largest Muslim nation, Indonesia is constantly grappling with Western ideology as it navigates what it means to be a religious state in the 21st century. Whether it is local artists mired in censorship, or international acts missing the freedoms of home, state vs art in Indonesia is something that I have long been familiar with. It is also something that the Indonesian music community is fighting once again as it comes together to stomp dead recent legislation aimed at curtailing basic artistic freedoms.
Growing up under a military dictatorship, you listened to what was “acceptable”. During my youth in the 1980s, music on the radio and on television was limited to state-run television and radio. Indonesia didn’t get a second television channel (the first private one) until 1989. MTV did not arrive for years and commercial radio and Top 40 kept it simple- Casey Kasem was the most offensive thing on the air. Searching for the musical underground was not an option for me as a kid and I do not remember hearing or seeing international acts touring during my early years. Only in the 1990s did things seem to change, but progressive acts did not have an easy time infiltrating Indonesia.
When I saw Green Day on their Insomniac tour in 1996, one of my most vivid memories of the show was the sight of police caning punks who were “rioting” outside the venue. I believe it is one of the reasons why Green Day have never been back to Jakarta, the sight of police caning concert goers is not something Billie Joe and company were interested in returning to.
For me, it was vivid, but not out of the ordinary. This wasn’t the first time I was privy to this sort of behavior in a world where music, art, and people hungry for it had to fight against the confines of the state and law.
In 1993, Metallica visited Indonesia on their Nowhere Else to Roam tour (their fifth tour to support the Black Album) and played a stadium not far from my house. It didn’t end well, with paying ticket goers clashing with those crashing the event, rioting ensued, cars were overturned and lit on fire (including my assistant headmaster’s- which at the time, we found hilarious). And as I remember it, there was also a long stretch (over years) where international acts boycotted touring in Indonesia during the 90s in response to many of the government’s policies. It just felt like an absolute barren spell of music-less years.
In the decades that followed there has been a continued clash between state and entertainment. Despite this, the current generation has had opportunities within the arts that mine did not. There has been a greater sense of freedom to create art, and music in particular has flourished as social media and the popularity of digital mediums has given new avenues for young artists to share their work. However, this doesn’t mean they haven’t run afoul of the religious fundamentalists.
Back in 2003, Indonesian folk artist Inul Daratista was publicly persecuted for her dance moves. She danced to traditional folk music but gyrated her hips like Shakira on Red Bull and this was deemed “pornographic” by the Indonesian Muslim Council. The ensuing backlash was on par to when Justin Timberlake got handsy with Janet Jackson at Super Bowl 38, except it wasn’t uptight suburban moms and dads writing letters to a television station, it was crazed religious fundamentalists demanding Inul’s public shaming and apology. How bad did it get? A national anti-pornography bill was introduced during the height of this controversy, one that would become law in 2008 where “a sexually suggestive performance could attract a 12-year prison sentence”. Imagine a world where Shakira’s hips are a nation’s moral outrage, and you have the type of hysteria that engulfed the world’s largest Muslim nation.
Late last year, a bill titled ‘RUU Permusikaan’ was drafted that many Indonesian musicians believed would suppress their freedom of expression. The bill would prohibit “bringing negative influences from foreign cultures” on top of creating rules against music that was “blasphemous”. It included such articles stating; “everyone is prohibited from […] bringing negative influences from foreign cultures or demeaning a human being’s dignity“. Draconian and prehistoric, with ambiguity as its strength.
In response, a coalition of over 263 artists was formed to fight the bill, stating that the laws were ambiguous, discriminative, and hindered independence.
Said one hardcore punk musician,
“Music is supposed to be universal and I think stating our opinions should not be controlled by a law.”
Following a campaign to raise funds and awareness, the coalition, along with noted rock band Slank (Slank are Indonesia’s Rolling Stones) met with legislator Anang Hermansyah from the House of Representatives of Indonesia back in February and successfully convinced him and the House to drop the bill. It is a win for artists and musicians in Indonesia and proof that you can still chip away and tear down the most ironclad of barriers.
I asked music reporter Wening Gitomartoyo whether this was the end of it but according to her although things had died down a little the problem [of state vs art] hasn’t gone away. In the face of the recent national elections in Indonesia, this matter seems to have quietly dissolved into the backdrop of national politics. However, the coalition continues to raise awareness and isn’t resting on any laurels. Instead, they are remaining steadfast in making sure this bill is well and truly buried.
It is and has been the rallying cry for musicians the world over- their music and art are extensions of their selves, the bullhorn for their opinions and beliefs and no state, especially in 2019, should be able to control it. It is this clash between traditional state control and progressive ideology that has been at the heart of this conflict.
This past decade has seen growth and change, with greater artistic freedom for creative Indonesians and less interference by government. However, artists, musicians, and fans must continue to stand up to fundamentalist oppression to ensure that progress continues to be made, and Indonesia doesn’t go backwards. It will take the united efforts of both the younger and older generations to fight against the kind of state legislated tyranny exemplified by this bill.
Whether it is a military presence at a NOFX show or Lady Gaga getting her show canceled, Indonesia’s firm religious bedrock means it’ll be a long time, and a long fight, before the so-called blasphemy of art and music are able to thrive and flourish on a grand scale.
Book Review: My Father Left Me Ireland – An American Son’s Search For Home
My Father Left Me Ireland should be read widely and thoughtfully, as both an example of outstanding memoir and as a political intervention.
Among those who think themselves wise, few words in our political vocabulary seem more likely to elicit a derisive scoff than nationalism. Little, as ever, do they know, as it is an idea whose importance, in our time of Brexit, Trump, and pandemic, has been somewhat rescued from neglect and disfavour. Nationalism, as any fair-minded thinker would allow, has both benign and pathological forms, and it isn’t inevitably guided or condemned to take one path over the other.
After pointing this out, one notices, with annoyance, more scoffs, the volume and contempt of which are calculated by the gender of the accused, the toxicity of his masculinity, his alleged racism, and, well, you know the list by now.
Perhaps such unthinking responses are best ignored, useless as they are, perhaps now more than ever. This almost seems to be the approach of Michael Brendan Dougherty in his memoir My Father Left Me Ireland, a serious and affecting reflection on fathers and sons, the nation and its survival.
Dougherty is, first of all, a masterly writer, and he so carefully interposes his personal narrative between the larger political, cultural and historical questions that one hardly notices the transitions. He writes:
“All nations are in some way dissolving, we’re told, and that the dissolution is a good thing. Ireland’s national pride is a font of violence, a spur to extremism and superstition. And besides, Ireland is a failure. It has always been a failure. After all, my ancestors left. James Joyce left. Ireland’s children still leave. They send back selfies from Bondi Beach in Sydney. They send back money from Vancouver . . . I have to laugh. They all leave, but you stayed.”
The addressee here is the father in the title, whose staying in Ireland left his son fatherless in America, loved at a distance. Now, the arrival of Dougherty’s first child prompts the collection of letters to his father which makes up the memoir.
The letters combine grief, humour, anger, reconciliation, and, perhaps most importantly, recovery:
“I am suddenly alive to the idea that I could pass on this immense inheritance of imagination and passion if only I could work up the courage to claim it for myself.”
First, however, his recollections must pierce the soul: all too brief moments of visiting his father and the tears that followed; and the abandonment and broken endurance of his heroic mother. “Your curse was in being so easy to love,” Dougherty tells his father, and it is that same love that compelled his mother to try to hold on to the Irish songs and stories, the political commitments, and even the language.
Despite the real hardship and the literary risks of the letter form, Dougherty never collapses into self-pity or sentimentality; his bigger themes wouldn’t allow it, anyway. He skilfully uses his own story to tell a more important one about the culture and its degradation. His insights are remarkable and convincing.
He contemns what he calls the myth of liberation: the combination of self-absorption and self-delusion by which his generational cohort has lived and suffered. This has led to the desecration of community and family institutions and their replacement with a focus on the self, who is always right. The preferred cliché, nowadays at least, is the exhortation to speak and live your truth, which is risible at first glance and nerve-wracking at the second.
Reflecting on the death of his mother, Dougherty ties this social deformation to his own mourning and anger:
“I was furious too at the ambivalence of our culture in the face of her death. This myth of liberation was like a solvent that had slowly and inexorably dissolved any sense of obligation in life. It dissolved the bonds that held together past, present, and future. It dissolved the social bonds that hold together a community, and that make up a home.”
For Dougherty, one part of the solution to this crisis is a return to the nation, and he finds solace and inspiration in the thought and words of Patrick Pearse, the teacher and revolutionary of the 1916 Easter Rising. Pearse averred:
“We must accustom ourselves to the thought of arms, to the sight of arms, to the use of arms. We may make mistakes in the beginning and shoot the wrong people; but bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing, and the nation which regards it as the final horror has lost its manhood. There are many things more horrible than bloodshed; and slavery is one of them.”
How easy it is to imagine such words shrivelling the tongue of some sanctimonious fool, the one who loathes the mere idea of borders, his nation, and, in the end, himself. We live in a time when speaking in defence of one’s inheritance is something like bad manners, and even the use of the word manhood is a social solecism. One easily notices a reproach in Pearse’s words, and we would do well to reflect on it.
For Dougherty, this reproach from the past means doing away with our present conception of the nation as mere administration, as a rank in terms of GDP or policy success or whatever. It means a recognition of what his father has truly left him – Ireland, with all its wonder and complexity. It means remembering that a nation has a soul, and we are haunted by its ghosts: our fathers and grandfathers from whom we inherit a tradition, as well as a responsibility to pass it on. It means that in such an act, sacrifice may be called for, and it should be given joyfully.
Some of these are old ideas, and we have forgotten them. That is why, in Dougherty’s arresting prose, they seem very much alive: “To dance up to the idea of idolatry, you might say the life of a nation proceeds from the father and the son.”
My Father Left Me Ireland should be read widely and thoughtfully, as both an example of outstanding memoir and, more importantly, as a political intervention: perhaps our etiolated debate over the nation and its soul can be brought back to life.
My Father Left Me Ireland
by Michael Brendan Dougherty
(Sentinel / Penguin Books)
My Father Left Me Ireland: An American Son’s Search For Home was published in April of 2019 by Penguin Books.
Malleable memories and transcending time: An interview with Joanna Howard
Author Joanna Howard talks about her new memoir, “Rerun Era.”
How many versions of my life are there?
Did other people see what I saw?
What really happened around me?
In a mesmerizing way, author Joanna Howard’s vivid new memoir, Rerun Era, nudges us to ask ourselves these questions — and reconcile what we think we know about time and our own experiences.
Narrated by Howard’s five-year-old self, Rerun Era paints a striking portrait of her childhood in rural Oklahoma. At the cornerstone of it all is trauma — as well as a connection to television that reveals more than pop culture taste. It serves as the foundation of time and memory.
While Rerun Era is a welcome return to a time of boxy television sets, VHS tapes, and radio dials, the story is relatable beyond generations and regions. It is the story of so many of our childhoods, spent seeking solace and stability in screens and laugh tracks.
When you started to write Rerun Era, did you think that remembering things in this fashion — attaching memories to, or grounding yourself in, pop culture — was universal or kind of unusual?
Howard: It felt universal for my generation, particularly. For a lot of people who grew up in the 80s and early 90s — it was the rise of the MTV generation. I did think there would be a lot of people who shared a kind of collective memory of what they watched. And it does seem to be the case. Since the book has come out, I’ve been hearing that from a lot of people. Even if we didn’t watch the same thing, it’s triggered people’s memories of what they watched when they were a kid.
Given how thoroughly media has changed in the past few decades — whether that’s speed, or the amount of media, or consumption habits — do you think it’s possible for late Millennials and Gen Z to experience the same type of solace and relationship to pop culture that you did?
Howard: I worry that they won’t. You know you’re getting old when you start worrying about how the youth consume culture, or whether they read or what they watch (laughs). I do think it’s hard now to watch anything we don’t feel we have complete control over. Like how we watch it, when we watch it, for what duration we watch it.
For me as a child, I knew it was time to go to dinner when one episode of M*A*S*H started, and I knew that dinner was over when another one started. That way in which television sort of cordoned off time? I just don’t think kids now can ever have that, because of streaming and downloadable platforms and binge watching.
It’s dramatically changed, that relationship with time. People can still escape into shows; it’s just a different kind of escape.
The memories that you wrote about seemed most vivid when they mimicked TV. For example, you wrote about going to an event called Frontier Days, where people were obviously dressed up and playing characters. In those types of scenes, everything seemed a bit more vibrant. Why do you think those memories were so vivid? The ones that — I don’t want to say they necessarily emulated TV, but they were obviously more character driven and almost played out like an episode of TV.
Howard: I do think if you grow up watching a lot of television, it really shapes the visual part of your memory. Like if I am reconstructing an experience in my mind or telling a story to someone out loud, I’m often sort of picturing it in my head like it’s a film or a television show, because I’ve done so much viewing as a kid. I still do this.
But that visual component is also super important to me in terms of seizing upon memories. I tend to be a person who, if I see an object, it triggers my memory much more than if I smell something or hear something, for example.
Do you think you were predisposed to having that kind of visual inclination, or was it shaped by TV? Or maybe both?
Howard: I definitely think it was shaped by TV. Movies, especially. Rerun Era focuses on television because it was in that moment right before we got a VCR. But when the VCR was introduced into my life, suddenly the longer form of stories was available . . . and I was just an obsessive watcher. I could do ten films in a row, no problem. I was really prepared for binge watching before it was a thing.
It’s all totally affected the way that I think. In my other writing, when I’ve done other types of fiction, people always say that image is the thing that unifies the style of my work. I’ve clearly been influenced by that visual culture.
In Rerun Era, television is really as much of a character as any of your family members, if not more so. At some points, it’s a caretaker. A reliable, comforting presence in your life. A window to somewhere outside of a small rural town.
Did it seem that way when you were younger, that TV was almost kind of personified? Or is it just now, in retrospect?
Howard: I really like the phrase “caregiver” that you’re using there. I was totally aware of the fact that my parents were cordoning me into this space to watch television, as their way of dealing with having a kid when they didn’t have time to deal with having a kid. The TV did absolutely feel like a babysitter.
I see it a lot with my friends who have kids now. They’re resisting putting the iPad or whatever in front of the kid, but there’s this way in which time opens up for adults when their kid goes into that zone. Even though you know it’s not a great idea, there’s something so seductive about the silence the parents get from it (laughs). That concept of “television as babysitter” or “VCR as babysitter” was my parents’ lifeline in many ways, and I was very aware of it.
But I don’t think I was worried about it, and my parents weren’t terribly worried about it either. Parents nowadays are obviously much more concerned with what screens are going to do to us in the future. My parents were not super worried (laughs).
I wonder how much of modern parents’ worry about screen time is because they themselves were babysat by screens. Which leads me to another thing I found really interesting about Rerun Era . . .I feel like, generally, people refer to latchkey kids or kids raised by TVs in a really negative light.
Howard: Oh, yes.
But you don’t do that. It’s very nostalgic. It’s very warm. TV is not, by any means, the enemy in your book.
Howard: Definitely not. If I have any kind of ethical core, it’s been partially formed by these clichés in these shows where the person does the right thing (laughs). Those shows sort of formed that tapestry for me.
But I also think it’s sad, the degree to which a parent now feels responsible for every aspect of their child’s life. I understand that comes out of seeing a lot of kids end up in very bad situations, or children who were susceptible to adults that were harmed or with bad caregivers.
For me and my friends, there wasn’t a lot of oversight into what we were doing (laughs). We were allowed to kind of run amok. My parents were working, and they didn’t have the time. And I’m kind of grateful for that. It meant I had a lot of freedom as a kid and as a teenager, and when I went to college, I didn’t freak out about the sudden freedoms you have when you become an adult.
I see it a lot with my students now, because I teach those Gen Z students, their parents have overseen just about every aspect of their lives and have been exactly what we think of as model parents. But it becomes so much harder for their kids to imagine their own independence in the world.
It seems like there are a lot of those types of experiences in Rerun Era that, while they’re still relatable, would be entirely foreign to later Millennials and Gen Z. Like one of the things from the book that I remember well were those uncertainties of who sang this song, who acted in that movie? That’s not an experience people can have now. Either passionately believing in a wrong answer for years, or not knowing what actor that was in that one thing. We have instant answers now.
It’s so interesting to think about how foreign the book could be to people who really aren’t that much younger.
Howard: That moment where the Internet made access to all answers possible, there was just no going back. There used to be a certain kind of charm that a person who collected trivia held in the world. If you were the guy who knew all of the records, and could identify who did that song — that person could even carve out a career from that. People would pilgrimage to try to get answers. You’d have these intense interpersonal exchanges where people would debate whether or not someone was in this particular Hitchcock film. Now you’re at a dinner party, someone asks “Who was in that?” and you Google it, and the conversation’s done (laughs).
Now, anyone can be an expert in, like, 20 minutes. There’s less of a need for people to collect up facts and learn now. Like I remember, we would play Trivial Pursuit, and whoever won was revered! (Laughs.) How amazing that this one person could answer all these questions in all these different categories? Sports, entertainment, history . . .
Oh, they were so worldly!
Howard: (Laughs.) It was amazing.
I feel like that instant access probably has something to do with why we’ve become so argumentative online. You can sit behind a screen and quickly Google things. Even if it’s something you didn’t know five seconds ago, you get so entrenched in it because you can find the answers to back up your opinions as fast as you need to.
Howard: Absolutely. And we also feel justified to call someone out for not knowing things because they should have Googled it before they posted whatever they posted. That’s a tough demand. And if you’re at all hot tempered, those things don’t go well together. (Laughs.)
To switch gears, you cover a great deal of trauma in the book. So much so that it seems as though more time lapses than the year you actually cover. How did you hone in on this specific period of your life?
Howard: You know, it just happened so quickly. I had been talking with a friend of mine, a poet from Arkansas, C.D. Wright. . . . she had been trying to get me to write about my family for a really long time. There are a lot of these parts of the world that are perceived to be backwards, and she thought that there weren’t enough stories from people who come from these parts of the world and have had a very vibrant relationship to culture and art. We didn’t necessarily grow up cut off from left-wing thinking or things like that. I set out to do this book because she was very much like, we need these voices in the world. And this book just immediately took off.
Originally, I hadn’t set out to do the voice how it is. I’ve never written anything with a child’s voice before. Once the voice was in place, it just started to write itself. The whole year came on in a tide; I’ve never had an experience like that with another book.
Did you uncover a lot of things you had forgotten about?
Howard: I sat down with my brother, who’s ten years older than me, and that helped. He was just a more fully formed thinker than me as a five-year-old. At five, I was prone to have gotten pieces confused or imagined things and my brother was very clear about things.
I found out that I had conflated some things and people. In a few instances, I allowed a bit of that fictional technique to rearrange some things.
People often write memoirs, even of their young childhood, with a great deal of certainty about details. In Rerun Era, that wasn’t really the case; you were upfront about the shifting or unsure part of your memories. Was that hard?
Howard: I definitely think it was helpful for me, that feeling of having articulated that. I didn’t go into the project thinking that’s what I was doing, because I didn’t think about my mind that way.
I think about the phrase “gaslight” a lot. We didn’t use that in the way we do now. We didn’t talk about it. My parents would often have a very different memory of something that took place than me or my brother did, and they would try to force that version on us. Because of that environment, where my memories have been challenged, I have always felt a bit vulnerable about what’s real and what’s not. It’s made me feel, at times, that I’ve needed to protect my own way of seeing things — even if it’s wrong. It can feel like your identity is being challenged.
What would you say to anyone who is struggling with that sense of being unsure of the details of what’s happened in their own life — particularly when it comes to traumatic events?
Howard: Well, I think it’s just really important to be gentle in the way that you deal with those things. I went into this book blaming my parents for a lot of things. My memory would sometimes shape things to re-emphasize that narrative of blame, or of the absentee parent. The process of writing the book really softened my view of my family, to know that we all had different ideas of what was actually going on.
Truth is really great when we’re talking about climate change, but when you’re dealing with your personal memories, that’s when we need to be gentle and a bit more lax. Those things can take time to figure out.
by Joanna Howard
Rerun Era is available for purchase at the McSweeney’s Store and Amazon.