Billie Eilish used her platform at the Grammy’s to state “no one is
illegal on stolen land.” I don’t care that she lives in a mansion, nor
do I care that her mansion may be on land once used by the so-and-so
tribe. That’s not my beef with her statement.
My frustration with what she said is twofold. First, it’s historically
absurdly ignorant. And second, it’s really just verbal diarrhea
intended to show how much she supposedly cares when a more mundane
motive (money) seems more likely.
First, all land is in some sense “stolen” land. Just take a look at the
history of the Middle East, Europe, or Africa. Her silly claim
suggests that somehow the land in the United States was “stolen” from
American Indians, as if the so-called indigenous tribes
had some sort of clear moral claim to the land. The various tribes
which inhabited what we now call the United States were frequently at
war with each other regarding use of the land. They weren’t always
pleasant with each other about it, by the way. There
was no generalized peace among them; quite the contrary, battles over
resources was a common theme of life among American Indians long before
Europeans set foot on American soil. In other words, one could not have
looked at America in 1500 and said who owned
what part of the land on any given day.
By the way, this has been the state of humankind going back millennia.
Just look at the Middle East as an example. We’ll start at 1,000 BC
just for kicks and giggles. At that point, Israel had a significant
presence, especially along the Mediterranean shore,
from Lebanon down to Egypt and eastward to the Jordan River. The
Hittites had come and gone from prominence. The Assyrians had not quite
ascended and neither had the Babylonians nor the Persians. By 500 BC,
Israel was a conquered state, Assyria had arisen
and fallen, Babylon had arisen and fallen and Persia was in control of
much of the area from modern day Iran across to the Mediterranean shore,
down to Egypt and even into the area of Macedonia.
Here’s the point: who REALLY owns that land? I have to conclude that
someone like Billie Eilish is most likely a sympathizer with the
Palestinian cause, despite, ironically, the current Palestinian people
being relative newcomers to the area. They certainly
can’t trace their claims as far back as Israel can. And, no, they are
NOT derivative of the ancient Philistines who roamed the area of Gaza
around 1000 BC. By the way, those Philistines were actually seafarers
who had arrived on those shores from the Mediterranean.
They weren’t indigenous, either.
The Greeks owned the Middle East briefly during the reign of Alexander the Great, who pushed the borders of his kingdom all the way to India.
Here’s the point with this brief history lesson: “stolen” land is a
feature of all land across the globe throughout history. The histories
of Europe and Asia are no less littered with constant warring over land
and resources.
Second, although I have recently taken a sabbatical from X and, thus,
I’m not in the loop on such things, before I took that break, I saw that
Ms. Eilish had suddenly discovered she has a buxom figure which she
could use to her advantage in getting noticed.
Odd, because prior to this all I ever saw of her was a frumpy looking,
somewhat dour teenager. She’s interested in money, money, money. She
wants to make more of it. So now she’s willing to be “exploited” by
posting scantily clad selfies? I thought profound
thinkers like her would be beyond such shameless self-promotion . . .
apparently not.
What does this have to do with her comment? Everything. She lives in a
mansion. She wants to make more, more, more. She has to get “hers”
while the getting is good, as it were.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a capitalist, so I don’t begrudge her making
money from selling her music. I listened to her song “Wildflower” so I
wouldn’t be completely ignorant of what she’s selling. She has a nice
voice and some range, but I don’t know that she’s
some sort of exceptional talent. The lyrics were, to my mind, Taylor
Swift-y but less upbeat. Nothing special.
Bottom line is she says stuff because it keeps people thinking about her
– as has been said about entertainment for many years – bad publicity
is better than no publicity. Here I am a 62-year-old and I’m writing
about her, so it worked. But isn’t that the
point?
I hate being cynical, and I hate when it turns out I’m right about these
things. But at this point, it seems all young Ms. Eilish has proven is
that she has no understanding of history and she is pandering to those
who will either (a) buy her music or (b) help
her sell her music. Whatever she thinks she's doing, her pretense to profundity isn't working. She should stick to singing.
