In the event of a nuclear attack, the only creatures we know will survive are cockroaches and the Rolling Stones. What wonât survive, however, are problematic classic rock tunes like the Stonesâ second-most played song in their catalog, âBrown Sugar.â
The Stonesâ Keith Richards acknowledged the songâs absence from their current tour in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
One song the band seems to have dropped from its set since the tour started up again is âBrown Sugar,â the Stonesâ gleefully problematic early-â70s smash that opens on a âGold coast slave ship bound for cotton fields.â
âYou picked up on that, huh?â Richards said when asked why theyâre not playing the tune. âI donât know. Iâm trying to figure out with the sisters quite where the beef is. Didnât they understand this was a song about the horrors of slavery? But theyâre trying to bury it. At the moment I donât want to get into conflicts with all of this sâ.â He laughed in his signature raspy fashion. âBut Iâm hoping that weâll be able to resurrect the babe in her glory somewhere along the track.â
Jagger, as usual, was more circumspect than his freewheeling counterpart. âWeâve played âBrown Sugarâ every night since 1970, so sometimes you think, Weâll take that one out for now and see how it goes,â he said.
As the New York Post points out, attacks on the song have been on the rise in recent years as the cultural movement to get rid of anything and everything that might be even the least bit offensive to someone in a particular minority group â be it based on race, sexual orientation, or gender â has been plowing through contemporary culture and now seeks to rewrite the pop culture of the past.
Jagger is clearly not singing the song in the first person, but the danceable tune has been slammed in recent years, with some critics dubbing it âstunningly crude and offensive.â
Other commentators have conceded it is âgross, sexist, and stunningly offensive,â but still rocking.
âI never would write that song now,â Jagger told Rolling Stone in 1995. âI would probably censor myself. Iâd think, âOh God, I canât. Iâve got to stop. I canât just write raw like that.ââ
The artists readily admit thereâs no way the song would pass muster today, but apparently still hold out hopes that they could work it back into the playlist rotation in future shows.
Thereâs absolutely no way I can comment on this without someone taking offense. If I, as a straight, white male from Louisiana, were to defend the song, Iâd be seen as just as problematic. If I say âYeah, the song is probably a little too fast and loose with the horrors of slave ownership,â I would be attacked by most of you reading this as someone who just gives in to cancel culture.
Thereâs no real winner here, which is frankly pretty reflective of the cancel culture movement weâre in right now. God forbid that the wokescolds re-discover the full version of Dire Straitsâ âMoney For Nothingâ (a Canadian group got it deemed âunacceptableâ for Canadian radio ten years ago, though). No one must be oppressed via song lyrics.
This is really just a repackaging of the constant movement to ban books like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird. I donât think works of literature, be they songs or books, should inherently be viewed as works of oppression any more than I think the color of someoneâs skin should inherently make them a societal victim or victimizer. âBrown Sugarâ and Huckleberry Finn, for example, arenât glorifying the horrors of white menâs treatment of African-Americans in bygone days of American history. Rather, they simply shine a light on those problematic aspects of Americaâs past. I donât really think Mick Jagger was saying the enslavement and sexual assault of a black slave was a good thing any more than I think Mark Twain was trying to say that the treatment of Huck Finnâs companion, Jim, was acceptable.
But what is interesting here is that the Stones took the matter into their own hands and retired the songs themselves, which is an acknowledgment from them that, yes, people are taking offense to it, so letâs drop it for a bit and try to talk about it/work through it. It isnât a total capitulation to cancel culture, at least for the moment.
But the Stones have been at this for longer than pretty much every other act that is touring today, and they have had their fair share of outrageous stories and scandals. They know how to navigate them, too, which is why youâre seeing a more proactive approach here. Itâs tactful and itâs not so much a loss as it is a truce. The Stones can get away with that, though, while other acts canât.
Especially since the flavor-of-the-month for outrages right now is LGBT issues, and Dave Chappelle is still getting piled on from that.
Maybe the lyrics to âBrown Sugar,â if you really listen to them, are a little cringey. But I can guarantee you very few people have listened to them at such an in-depth level that they pull out outrage and offense. Itâs a catchy song that will be stuck in your head later simply because you read this column. Itâs no different, from a musical standpoint, than conservatives who complain about the use of the n-word in modern rap. Kids who listen to that music arenât really thinking about the lyrics so much as they are simply experiencing the totality of the music.
The question that society has to face in these situations, however, is whether or not keeping some words or tropes alive in our various forms of entertainment are a detriment to society. I tend to think they aren